User:Mintgreen01/Freshwater acidification/Ontarioeditor03 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

mintgreen01


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Freshwater Acidification (reducing acidification)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Freshwater Acidification

Evaluation of lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Article does not have a proper lead and only states the title of the article. An article lead must show the importance of an article, reflect the most important information, and not have missing information/give redundant information like the article title. A way to improve this lead is to present the most important information succinctly, in this case, the author of this article can edit and use the first "introductory" paragraph of their "article body" as their lead. It contains all of the information the lead needs and can be shortened to reduce redundancy.

Evaluation of structure/organization/clarity

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Article has sensible structure and is easily readable, but could use some rearranging and better transitions for a smoother reading experience.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Yes, the main issue being run-on sentences. The following sentences can be rephrased or split into two sentences.

"For example, investing in scientists to monitor and collect data and allowing them to come up with a model that can be used to successfully implement policies, such as a protocol, to resolve the issue ."

"Governments could also invest funds to subsidize companies to decrease their pollution and allow them to use innovative methods of production, so as to lower both greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of acidic substances created."


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Article could use rearranging of sections. If government regulations are the main driver of freshwater acidification decrease, then the author should lead with that information. Acidification reduction techniques should be separated according to method of approach using headings like so:


 * Governmental regulations and policy
 * Current and emerging chemical techniques
 * Public Education

"New technologies" paragraph about new techniques on how to reduce freshwater acidification can be mentioned after the explanation of how liming works. This groups together all chemical/physical "reducing acidification" techniques in one paragraph. Explanation of how liming works should proceed research results as well in my opinion.

Example:

[before editing]

"There are processes that can remediate the acidification of freshwaters. Liming is one such practice, where calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is added to these systems. When added to rivers, some showed positive effects on the wildlife, increasing the abundance of fish and acid-sensitive invertebrates. However, these effects are variable. In fact, other studies had results that showed a decrease in invertebrate abundance. Liming aids freshwater chemical and biological recovery by increasing pH levels and essentially helping the habitat return to a similar condition to how it was prior to acidification. Otherwise, recovery on its own would be very extensive and take a lot longer to achieve."

[after editing]

"There are processes that can remediate the acidification of freshwaters. Liming is one such practice, where calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is added to these systems. Liming aids freshwater chemical and biological recovery by increasing pH levels and essentially helping the habitat return to a similar condition to how it was prior to acidification. Otherwise, recovery on its own would be very extensive and take a lot longer to achieve. When added to rivers, some showed positive effects on the wildlife, increasing the abundance of fish and acid-sensitive invertebrates. However, these effects are variable. In fact, other studies had results that showed a decrease in invertebrate abundance. New technologies have been developed for companies to be able to reduce their emissions of nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, linked to acid rain and water acidification. These include, wet lime, gypsum denitrification, Ammonia reduction denitrification, Electron beam irradiation desulfurization and denitrification, and Pulse plasma chemical desulfurization and denitrification."

Evaluation of balance

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes it is.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Two sources provided have been created in the past 2 years, so technically yes.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Author does a decent job of balancing sections as each paragraph summarizes important relevant information without too much redundancy or off topic subjects, but more view points, minority positions, and additional references are needed to make this article more substantial. The following improvements can be made for a more balanced article:

"However, these effects are variable. In fact, other studies had results that showed a decrease in invertebrate abundance. Liming aids freshwater chemical and biological recovery by increasing pH levels and essentially helping the habitat return to a similar condition to how it was prior to acidification. Otherwise, recovery on its own would be very extensive and take a lot longer to achieve."

''Present the findings of the studies/supplemental information. What is the history of liming? What do multiple prominent, verified sources/organization/companies state about liming specifically? Who specifically opposes and is for liming officially?''

"A large decrease of acid rain and acidic bodies of water in the past couple of decades has been a direct result of governmental regulations on anthropogenic emissions, specifically SOx and NOx.Governments have the power to make this issue a priority and invest in what is needed to mitigate it. For example, investing in scientists to monitor and collect data and allowing them to come up with a model that can be used to successfully implement policies, such as a protocol, to resolve the issue"

''How? What were the exact results of these protocols? Research the government policies surrounding freshwater acidification and explain how they have been successful. See if any policies failed to make a change over time. See if any policies were not sufficient enough to exhibit change over time. See if there was any oppositions to government protocols by the general public or significant organizations.''

Evaluation of neutrality

 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes. Even though it feels like common sense to support freshwater acidification reduction efforts and/or "green" practices, the article cannot reflect that (which it does at times). The information in this article could be presented more neutrally. Article could benefit from less generalizations, more neutral language, and equal representation of opinions/research.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Examples of generalizations/non-neutral language:

"Governments have the power to make this issue a priority and invest in what is needed to mitigate it."

''Generalization of global governments, not all governmental powers have the ability to prioritize and invest in freshwater acidification reduction. Maybe provide an example instead? For example: "The French government have previously made efforts to prioritize freshwater acidification reduction through policies, such as...which has lead to..."''

"And, finally, being altogether more aware of the effect our actions have on the environment to better protect our planet."

I don't think personal pronouns can be used in wikipedia, unless it's a direct quote.

Examples of bias:

"For example, following a circular approach to reduce, reuse and recycle is essential."

Who or what says it's essential? ''Is this is a verifiable fact? If so provide it.''

"Having a basic understanding of environmental problems, such as climate change and acid rain, can influence people to act differently."

In what way? What is the evidence for this?

Evaluation of sources and references
No it is not. Vaguely. Information in article can be found in given citations but they are not cited correctly. For example, when study findings are mentioned, the primary research is not cited.
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Example of correct citing of primary research

"When added to rivers, some showed positive effects on the wildlife, increasing the abundance of fish and acid-sensitive invertebrates ." Partially. More references are actually needed to represent full spectrum of literature. Technically yes. Studies/Review Articles related to acidification reduction in bodies of water
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)


 * 1)   Mant, R. C., Jones, D. L., Reynolds, B., Ormerod, S. J., & Pullin, A. S. (2013). A systematic review of the effectiveness of liming to mitigate impacts of river acidification on fish and macro-invertebrates. Environmental Pollution (1987), 179, 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2013.04.019
 * 2) Jüttner, I., Kelly, M. G., Evans, S., Probert, H., Orange, A., Ector, L., & Marsh-Smith, S. (2021). Assessing the impact of land use and liming on stream quality, diatom assemblages and juvenile salmon in Wales, United Kingdom. Ecological Indicators, 121, 107057–. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107057
 * 3)   Rosseland, B. O. (2021). The legacy from the 50 years of acid rain research, forming present and future research and monitoring of ecosystem impact: This article belongs to Ambio’s 50th Anniversary Collection. Theme: Acidification. Ambio, 50(2), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01408-7

News articles/documents/statements on government policies or action

Yes.
 * 1) Hildrew, Alan. (2018). Freshwater acidification: natural history, ecology and environmental policy.
 * 2) Canada's historical response to acidification of local waters (ex.1985 Eastern Canada Acid Rain Program)
 * 3) Acid Rain Program (USA)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Overall impression
Yes, "reducing acidification" is an important section to add within the original article. There is a lot to cover research and policy wise that can provide the reader with a more relevant and full understanding of the topic. The strengths of this article include:
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?


 * Coverage of current and emerging fresh water acidification reduction techniques.
 * Good explanation on how government regulation and policy has and can reduce fresh water acidification.
 * How public education can be used as an awareness tool.

To summarize this content can be improved by:
 * How can the content added be improved?


 * Adding a proper lead.
 * Rearranging the structure of their article to prioritize important information as well as including headings.
 * Balance through the addition of more publications on specific subjects and events.
 * The use of neutral language and minority positions.
 * Adding more references as well as properly citing those references.