User:Madhatter1752/Wetland conservation/SeaCowSnuggles Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Madhatter1752


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Madhatter1752/Wetland conservation
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Wetland conservation

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer Review

Lead


 * Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect new content. The updated lead contains information that is much more relevant to the general overview of wetland conservation.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the introductory sentence clearly and concisely explains what wetlands are and the kinds of threats they are being protected against.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead includes a brief description of most of the article's major sections. The only description the lead seems to be missing is over "Restoration Efforts and Projects," as that section seems to take up a considerable portion of the article but is not mentioned in the lead paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, the lead does not include any information that is not already found in the article. All of the information in the lead is expanded upon in the subsequent sections of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is clear and concise and contains the perfect amount of information to introduce readers to the topic of wetland conservation. Comparing the old vs edited article, the editor cut out unnecessary information that was not conducive to introduce the topic of wetland conservation.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, all content in the article is relevant to the topic. The only thing I found as somewhat unnecessary was the sentence under the section, "Wetland Functions and Values," where it says, "Wetlands serve as multifaceted ecosystems with a wide array of essential functions..." I think this sentence could be cut out because it seems like repetitive filler information that was already covered in the lead paragraph.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, most of the content has been published or updated within the last 10 years. There is some content from within the last 20 years, and I only found one source that seems to be older than 20 years, which would be the article titled, "Wetland Functions and Values," listed as the 11th source in the article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Under the section titled, "Threats to Wetlands," it says, "Urban development, pollution, land drainage, and climate change are endangering these valuable habitats that serve as essential flood buffers and wildlife havens." The article then builds upon these ideas with the subsections, "Habitat Loss," "Pollution," and "Invasive Species." Although climate change is mentioned in as one of the threats to wetlands, it is not further supported through evidence in those subsections. I think some information about climate change and wetlands could be added under the subsection of "Habitat Loss." Depending on how much information you find, climate change could be added as subsection in itself.
 * Another piece of content that seems to be missing under the "Habitat Loss" section is the impacts on species other than fish. One sentence reads, "As fish play a crucial role in the food chain, their decline can lead to changes in the abundance and behavior of other species, affecting the entire wetland ecosystem." Fish are an important part of a wetland ecosystem, but there are so many other types of species that are impacted by wetland habitat loss. Maybe you could add in a bit more information about reptile, bird, and amphibian populations that rely on wetlands?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article addresses restoration projects that are in effect in underrepresented populations. For example, under the section, "Eden Reforestation Project (USA 2022)," it describes the project as a means of employment for locals and to alleviate poverty all while combatting deforestation.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content added to this article seems neutral and unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Wetland conservation in itself could be considered a "particular position" as opposed to a position against conservation efforts. So naturally, it seems to be in favor of wetland conservation since it is discussing that topic. However, I believe that this article is as neutral as a wetland conservation article could be.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?
 * The only viewpoint that could be underrepresented is the costs/cons of wetland conservation and conservation efforts in general. Some people may be opposed to conservation efforts because it may cost too much or may not be successful. You could maybe add this on as a potential article section?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of a position, it simply just informs them about wetland conservation.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable source of information?
 * Most of the new content is either from government websites or scholarly articles, so they do seem like a reliable source of information. I flagged one source as possibly unreliable which was, "Pollution timebombs: Contaminated wetlands are ticking towards ignition," by Colin McCarter and Mike Waddington, cited as the 17th source in the article. Although the authors seem to be credible, as they are professors at universities, the article seems biased and perhaps over-exaggerated with little support for their claims. For example, the article says, "Even without metal pollution, these airborne particles can cause severe illness and death. Making a bad situation worse, toxic metals once safely stored in wetlands bind to these airborne particles and spread everywhere." Strong words like severe illness, death, and toxic metals spreading "everywhere" with no sources to support this information leads me to believe that this source is biased and unreliable.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The article seems to be mostly free of grammatical or spelling errors. I did find two grammatical errors under the "Invasive Species" section where it says, "The Nutria is a semi-aquatic rodent that originated from South America but was brought to the united states in 1989 due to the popularity of its fur, but over the year has taken over wetlands due to being released or escaping wetlands." In this sentence, United States should be capitalized and the word "year" should be changed to "years."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the article's content is very well organized and balanced. All content is broken down into sections that highlight the major points of wetland conservation.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * For the most part, the article does include images that enhance understanding of the topic. However, the picture under the "Habitat" section includes a picture and caption of a beaver dam, which is not discussed in the article. Perhaps a more generalized diagram of the types of species that congregate in wetland habitats would be more effective? (e.g. birds, fish, reptiles etc.) The picture under the section "Filtration" of the original article is a good example of a wetland ecosystem diagram.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The images are well-captioned, although some captions can be shortened, such as the caption under "Recreation, Education and Research." It can be shortened to just say, "Students explore wetlands at DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge."
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * All images seem to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, all images are visually appealing and enhance the article's information.

Overall impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.r. is the article more complete?
 * Yes, overall, the content that was added significantly improved the overall quality of the article. The article is more complete, well balanced, and full of relevant information to the topic of wetland conservation.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * One strength of the content added is better structure in terms of sections and subsections. For example, one section describes the functions and values of wetlands, and another section describes the threats to wetlands, and finally the article covers the importance of wetland conservation and restoration efforts. The original article had an unorganized, unbalanced, and substandard section headers that weren't exactly relevant to the topic of wetland conservation.
 * Additionally, the original article organized wetland conservation as "Conservation by Country," by only highlighting 5 countries, which was not very effective. Instead, the editor organized conservation efforts by specific projects, which seemed to make more sense structurally.
 * Another strength of the content added is topic relevancy. The original article contained a lot of information that was not necessarily relevant to the topic. I think the editor did an amazing job at cutting out unnecessary information and incorporating new information that was relevant to the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved? As discussed earlier in my peer review, content can be improved through adding the missing content that I highlighted under the "Content" section, finding a different source for the article that I flagged as unreliable, fixing the grammatical errors under the "Invasive Species" section, and simplifying image captions, as well as swapping out the beaver dam picture with a picture that is more relevant to the "Habitat" section. Overall, this article was informative, well-balanced, well-researched, and carefully constructed. This article looks almost completely different from the original, and that's a good thing, I can really tell that the editor put a lot of effort into it!