User:Mickinahan/OrganicFertilizer/PeerReviewByObliqueFault

PEER REVIEW by ObliqueFault - Dated March 4th, 2021[edit]
''The original article for ‘Organic Fertilizer’ had a  2-paragraph lead section and 5 sub-sections under the heading ‘Examples and sources’. This review assumes that the intent of this draft is to replace the Lead sections with this new first paragraph and the Mineral Fertilizer sub-section with the second paragraph. This review also acknowledges that this draft being reviewed is just a small portion of a bigger editing and content adding project.''

LEAD SECTION[edit]
The new Lead section is simpler and clearer;    it gives a taste of what will be described  in the sub-sections as well prefaces the article as a whole. Qualifying what ‘organic’ is and showing by example the range of organic fertilizers was well done and filled a big omission in the original article.

The ‘Principles of Organic Agriculture’ seemed to be used as Source for defining organic fertilizers. It is unclear if this is agency or just a well-known or well-respected concept. If it is concept, perhaps there is another way to convey that the fertilizers being discussed here are with respect to agriculture. This term has the tone of being a point of view. However, the sentence works well by just omitting it:

Organic fertilizers are fertilizers that are naturally produced, contain carbon and feed the ecosystem as a whole, which includes the soil, microbes and the community at large, not just the crops.

Overall the lead section was well done but there is still some holes. Is the article just talking about fertilizers with respect to agriculture? And if it is just with respect to plants, what is a fertilizer? Is it just a nutrient or is it also to fight disease and improve soil? Is it different in different climates? Also are organic fertilizers something that needs to be converted by certain organism in the soil in order to be available to the plant. Can the plant absorb it immediately or is this done over time? These are items that may need to be expanded on in the greater article, but perhaps should be touched on briefly in the Lead section.

One part of that sentence “all animal waste including meat processing, manure, slurry and guano..” may be clearer if instead of ‘animal waste’, something more general such as 'animal-based" as some whole animals such as insects and worms can stimulate soil to indirectly nourish a plant by improving its root structure.

The final Lead section sentence makes reference to the problematic POV ‘Principles of Organic Agriculture’ term. However, the sentence doesn't require it as it is referenced by citation and it reads clearer when it is omitted.

MINERAL FERTILZERS Sub-section[edit]
The first sentence is a clean and applicable definition of what minerals are. However, not all minerals used for fertilizers are ‘mined’. For example, gypsum is a surface marine evaporite. Many minerals in sedimentary rocks can be available commercially at surface just by erosion. A way around this is to use the concept of minerals that form biogenetically or abiotically, as chemical precipitates or alterations.

The example of how limestone improves plant health is well done and provides a clean link for the reader how a mineral ‘rock’  can affect a plant.

REFERENCES:[edit]
The first and second citations may not be the best for fertilizers with respect to agriculture in general as Turf-grass is not typically used for animal or human food and is product for a specific consumer niche. A citation from a more general agriculture application source could be more applicable. However, all the citations are properly cited and are available on-line.

OVERALL:[edit]
The Lead article prefaces the sub-sections that follow and is an adequate summary for the content of the entire article. The content provided in this draft  would fit well into the unedited part of the original article and bring more clarity and depths to many of the core terms. With the exception of the floating concept of “Principles of Organic Agriculture” which suggests a POV, the article had a neutral tone. And grammar and spelling wise, the draft there is nothing to change. Overall, a very well done draft!~