User:Naeim9146/Nautilus Minerals/NabilShawwa Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Naeim9146


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Naeim9146/Nautilus_Minerals&oldid=1147109817
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nautilus Minerals
 * Nautilus Minerals

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Naeem,

I just read the draft of your article that you wrote before making it live. It is one of the better written articles by a student that I've read. Only issues I found were grammatical. See below for my comments:

Lead
The lead is concise and provides a good overview of what Nautilus Minerals was. It provides the necessary information for the casual reader prior to diving into the details of the body of the article that are of interest to keen readers.

The first sentence informs us that Nautilus Minerals was a deep sea mineral exploration company. The following sentences then informs us where they operated, which is then followed by a string of text on their bankruptcy. This is all the information necessary for an overview of this topic.

Content
The content is good because it provides sufficient details for the average reader to understand. Furthermore, this draft of the article does not provide excessive details that will either be incompressible for the average reader or even bore them. Overall, the content provides necessary facts for readers to understand the goals, controversy, and fate of Nautilus Minerals during their operational lifespan.

More details on mined tonnage would be good. Perhaps you could provide details on the amount of ore mined relative to the estimated amounts that were present in the targeted reserves. IVE DONE THIS

Tone and Balance
The content added is considered neutral even if it is was an environmentally controversial project. The content provides the facts of Nautilus Minerals using a wide diversity of sources and references. Regarding the controversy portion of the article, this has a tendency to lead to bias writing, but it is apparent that the author took the time to just state controversial facts from the diverse set of sources.

Sources and References
All your references seem to well accredited. I agree that they were carefully selected and well reviewed prior to adding them to your article. I see that you have added a few new citations in your live article to fill some gaps, so I will not comment on this any further or suggest any extra citations.Your reference list needs to be tidied, as some of the formatting is incorrect. Albeit, it appears that you have fixed this in the live article.

Organization
I found a few grammatical issues, varying from sentence structure to run-on sentences. Here are a few suggestions for modification:


 * 1) "However, there were no feasibility (or pre-feasibility) studies done on the project and deep sea mining was, at the time of the project, unproven" is a confusing sentence. I suggest rephrasing the last half.  This is an easy to understand and concise sentence. I've confirmed this to be decently well understood by a few people - Perhaps give me a little more explanation as to why you find it confusing?
 * 2) "Further, the hydrothermal vents at the Solwara-1 site were considered rare and little-studied ecosystem types, with David Attenborough calling deep sea mining at hydrothermal vents “deeply tragic” needs some restructuring. I suggest rephrasing the words "little-studied ecosystem types". FIXED THIS
 * 3) "Additionally, the report had assumed no impacts on communities and no cultural claims since it was located out to sea and no affected communities were identified, despite there having been vocal opposition by coastal communities, including local protest groups such as Solwara Warriors, who believed they were already seeing negative impacts from the project’s exploratory phase" needs to be broken up into multiple sentences . FIXED THIS

Overall impressions
Honestly, this draft of your article was nearly sufficient enough to satisfy the requirements for the final article. Your article should be good for final submission once your reference are cleaned up (which I think you have done on your live article already) and once your grammatical issues are fixed. Particularly since I saw that you have already added media files and hyperlinks as well. Like I said, it is one of the better article I have read.

Cheers,

Nabil

I've worked on your peer review Nabil.

'''Thank you. That seems to have improved my article.'''

Naeem