User:Morganpound/Society of Wetland Scientists/Rugtata Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mackenzcarter16, Morganpound


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The lead is concise, with an equally concise introductory sentence, and does not include information not present later in the article. However, no sectioning exists, and there were no substantive change to the lead in regard to newer content added by the drafters.

Content


 * The content is relevant: the drat contains information on the Society's history and organizational structure; however, I find it lacking on what specific awards the society offer, types of membership, certification, the annual meeting, and sparse information on the flagship journal. The content is also up-to-date. Furthermore, is it really necessary to enumerate what locations the SWS has chapters in? If possible, can you delve into Macomber's motivations in establishing the society?
 * The added information about members of the executive board, awards, and types of membership is both relevant and up-to-date.
 * To a certain extent, the draft article does deal with environmental conservation, a topic previously thought niche until the turn of the 1960, which spurred greater governmental attention at both federal and state levels.

Tone and Balance


 * The added content does not overtly sway a particular biased position regarding the society; however, I wish that current long-term programs that the society engages in, such as the preservation of Lake Ohrid in the current version of the article, stated in the draft contain stances arguing against current efforts, if possible.

Sources and References

Links to sources were posted, but none of them are clickable.
 * All sources used in the draft stem from websites owned by the Society, and no third-party sources are included, even though all information presented in the draft is accurately reflected from the given sources. The sources are current, but outside sources, such as this interview to a SWS member (https://munsell.com/color-blog/society-wetland-scientists-interview-leandra-cleveland/) helps flush out more the society's goals.

Organization


 * Unlike the current revision of the article, the draft contains no sections; this renders the draft hard to navigate effectively. Perhaps the following sections should be included: history, functions, and notable events. However, no major grammatical or spelling errors were encountered.

Images

 * No imagery found.

Overall impressions


 * To a certain extent, the added content flushes more about functions performed by the society; however, the vagueness of some key components of the society, such as the specifics of awards and certification, alongside the lack of sources beyond the Society's own hampers impartial clarity on understanding. Furthermore, please include sections, such as history, current membership, and functions; and elaborate more on the " Professional Certification Program" (maybe separate section)
 * One strength is the thoroughness of stating the extent of the Society worldwide, its organizational structure, and stating current leaders.