User:Lglayman/Intertidal zone/Addyalaska Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Lead
 * You seem to have made two paragraphs in the into one (in the original there was a paragraph break after the description of the peritidal zone). It's now a very long paragraph that's hard to get through.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Ecology
 * I like the information you added about humans/migratory birds, but I think it would fit better at the end of this section, rather than where you placed it.
 * Legal issues
 * In the last paragraph, the word "constrained" is improperly used. You could phrase this more simply by saying "management is often neglected due to..." "management is not prioritized due to..." or "management is often neglected and not prioritized due to..."
 * It might be helpful to explain a little what you mean by "no intent for collective economic productivity". It's a little unclear what your point is here.
 * Threats
 * Remove comma after "abundance of marine species".
 * In the list of threats summarized by scientists, maybe cite a source for each of those
 * I don't think that "methods" is the correct word. "Method" implies that the habitat destruction is systematic and planned, when realistically it is just a byproduct of other actions. I would rephrase this as "Habitat destruction is advanced through activities including harvesting fisheries...". You also have a comma at the end of that sentence instead of a period.
 * You could also make your next sentence more concise-- "are responsible for the leading cause of" is confusing-- are the issues you listed the leading causes or are they causing the leading cause? I would rephrase this as "... and untreated sewage are some of the leading causes for..."
 * In the next section you either need an em dash (—) or to put a period there. Either would work. I would remove the comma and add an "and" between "reproductive health" and "available nutrients".
 * You have a typo "marine specie".
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Nope, seems pretty good.
 * Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Citations 1-4 do not have a link
 * Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * I'm not sure "sidmartinbio" is the best academic source...
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?