User:Nc1018!/Copper toxicity/ToxicologyVerify Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nc1018!


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Copper toxicity
 * Copper toxicity

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead has an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic

The lead does not include a brief description of the major sections of the article however, has the sections of the article listed within the lead

The lead does not include information that cannot be found within the article

The lead is short and concise

Content:

The content provided was useful and relevant to the topic

The content appears to be up to date, two studies involving mice investigating copper and cancer seems old (2011) however, no other studies have investigated a correlation with copper and cancer

Within the 'Treatment' section, the statement, "Treatment can also look like ozone oxidation for environmental toxicity problems, as well as removing sediment in water areas because sediment can be a home for toxicants to reside" seems out of place and not relevant for treatment

Within the 'Aquatic life' section, the statement, "This particular study said that the juveniles were 4.5 more times sensitive to the toxins than the adults", should be quoted as this is a direct reference to data found within the study as the author is saying 'this particular study said...'

Within the 'Bacteria' section, there is a statement claiming that viruses are less susceptible to an effect in comparison to bacteria - this information does not have a reference/citation proving this statement to be true

Tone and Balance:

The content within this paper seems neutral and does not appear to be biased in a particular direction

The content is not persuasive in its writing

Sources and References:

Most of the content is backed by relevant and recent data aside from the few that I mentioned within the 'Content' section of this evaluation

Most of the content is relatively new in the scientific world (within the past decade or so) with only few sources from several decades ago

The links provided to guide the reader to the reference and the sources appear diverse

Organization:

The content is concise and clear however, some areas would not hurt to have smoother transitions into different topics. occasionally appearing to abruptly move into different content/data/facts that do not cohesively tie with the previous sentence

No grammatical or spelling errors seem apparent

The content is well organized

Images and Media:

Only was piece of media can be found throughout the article and is located in the 'Lead' section however, I do not feel that the picture aids in understanding of the topic (I also do not think the point of the picture is to aid in understanding, rather provide a visual image of a way copper toxicity may manifest)

The image included is well-captioned

The image is positioned in an appealing manner

Overall Impression:

I think that the content is well-rounded and can provide a good understanding about information pertaining to copper toxicity

I think a way to improve the content is to make each statement cohesive with the previous sentence so that the data/statements do not seem random (overall not frequent, abrupt changes in topic)