User:Mguy170/Particulate pollution/BiologyBarbie Peer Review

General info
Mguy170
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Mguy170/Particulate pollution - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Particulate pollution - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
The Sources Portion is completely copied from the Wikipedia page itself with no changes made.

There are no references listed, so I am unsure of where the information under Environmental Risks came from, as well as there were no additional references added to the initial Wikipedia article itself.

In regard to the portion written under Environmental Risks my Peer Review is as follows:

"Particulate matter (PM), particularly PM2.5, was found to be harmful to aquatic invertebrates."

This sentence should be in the present tense, as the Particulate Matter is still something that exists, so "was" should be "is".

"These aquatic invertebrates include fish, crustaceans, and Mollusca, all of which are consumed by humans."

I would not include this sentence, as this sentence does not seem very neutral, as while some aquatic invertebrates are consumed by humans, it is not all humans, so this claim could be considered biased, which is something we want to stay away from while writing for Wikipedia.

"In a study by Han et al, the effects of PM<2.5 micrometers on life history traits and oxidative stress were observed in Tigriopus japonicus."

This study needs to be cited in the references and cited within the article, without this citation, it cannot be determined if this is an appropriate and supportive study for this article.

"Exposure to particulate matter of less than 2.5 micrometers in width led to significant changes in ROS levels, indicating that particulate matter exposure was a causative agent of oxidative stress in Tigriopus japonicus (Han et al, 1)."

As I stated above this experiment needs a citation, but also for this sentence to be included, you should explain the ROS level and write in a more neutral tone, this sentence gives a slight bias towards the experiment, when there could have been experimental errors.