User:Mariserge529/Mercury pollution in the ocean/Ra07847 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mariserge529/Mercury pollution in the ocean


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mariserge529/Mercury_pollution_in_the_ocean?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mercury pollution in the ocean

Evaluate the drafted changes
Although the author has not updated or added to the material in the lead, it is quite extensive and helpful and is divided into distinct sections for the body of the post. For the information The paper is jam-packed with current, topical material, but the assigned peer didn't contribute much of anything. The page appears to be jam-packed with information, thus it appears like there may not have been much more that could have been included.The tone of the article was very informative and neutral.The sources for this page are quite current; some are from the last ten years, and all of the writers have professional credentials. I was unable to locate any new sources uploaded by the assigned peer by looking at the conversation page. The article's material flows naturally and is simple to read from beginning to end. Sections are positioned correctly, and the material they provide is relevant to the core idea. The article contained very few if any grammatical errors.The essay, in my opinion, is exceptionally well-organized and has a consistent tone that is impartial and objective. The content was pertinent to the main subject and did not go off course. However, because there was so much information already present, the article was not improved by the assigned peer. Other than more current data from this year, I don't think there is much that could be added to the article.