User:Lmellen/Beach cleaning/James Iversen Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Username of Editor's Work I am Reviewing: Lmellen
 * Link to Article I am Reviewing: Beach cleaning

Lead

 * Yes the lead has been updated to reflect new information of the editor.
 * The first line adequately explains what beach cleaning is in a comprehensible way.
 * The lead outlines a few but not all of the content within the article. Most notably, the article does not mention the benefits of beach cleaning in the introduction.
 * The lead presents information that is within the article, however this needs to be updated and expanded.
 * The lead is not very concise and seems to have lists of information which either seem to clunky or somewhat redundant.

Lead evaluation
Overall, the lead is viable and gives good information about the subject. However, they are missing key outlining details and the paragraphs need to be streamlined.

Content

 * Yes the content added by the editor is extremely relevant and is useful to the article as a whole.
 * While reading the article I found no information to be out of date.
 * There is no content which is explicitly missing, however some content seems to be lackluster compared to others. An example of this is the section on "Types of Engagement". This section is not as strong as the "Benefits of Beach Cleaning Section" and should be improved if possible.

Content evaluation
The content of this article is very strong and only minor changes are necessary.

Tone and Balance

 * For the most part, the tone of the article is relatively neutral. I believe the tone is at a happy medium at this point.
 * The article heavily favors beach cleanup and preservation of marine wildlife, however that is due to the nature of the issue.
 * All viewpoints of this article seem to be represented carefully.
 * The content definitely favors beach cleaning efforts and hits out against beach goers who pollute the beaches, along with industries which dump excessive waste. Although this seems like a negative comment, I do not believe you can get all the information to the reader without showing both the positive and negative sides of this story. Therefor, the overall tone of this article seems fair.

Tone and balance evaluation
This topic is incredibly hard if not impossible to display without a bias in balance. That being said, the bias comes from the overwhelming data supporting beach cleanup efforts and not from the diction of the authors/editors. You did a great job at minimizing any bias and I do not believe any work is needed for the tone of the article to be improved.

Sources and References

 * Looking at the references, all of them seem to be from credible sources like academic papers.
 * The sources are thorough and I do not think they missed any vital sources which could drastically help the article.
 * All sources are up to date and current.
 * All the links I checked worked.

Sources and references evaluation
Great work finding sources. 10/10.

Organization

 * The content is very well written besides the lead/intro which needs some improvement. See above.
 * I did not find many grammatical errors, and where I did, I changed them.
 * The content is well organized for the most part. The only thing I recommend is separating the section on "The Causes and Sources of Marine Debris" to have subtitles and different sections. This was done well with other sections, however this one seems clunky.

Organization evaluation
Great organization within the article. Only needs the aforementioned changes.

Images and Media

 * There are multiple images and maps which are all relevant and help the reader understand the topic.
 * Some of the images have 2-3 word captions which need to be expanded. Give more information such as location, time... etc.
 * All the images are from the wikipedia domain and do not violate regulations.
 * The images are not laid out in an appealing way and most of them are too small, being dwarfed by the literature of the article.

Images and media evaluation
The images and maps included in this article are great and really help the reader understand the information better. The only changes which are needed are more informative captions and bigger picture sizes. These are minor changes.

Overall impressions

 * The content added has drastically improved to the article.
 * The strongest portion of the content added is how in-depth it goes into the subject and backs this information up with good sources.
 * The only area of improvement in regards to adding content would be to have an equal distribution. Do not let the article fall too heavily on one issue/topic.

Overall evaluation
The work added to this article definitely improves the readability and provides more key information that was left out. I have outlined a few changes which I will make to the article, however as a whole, this is becoming a very good article. Well Done!