User:Noodleslovespapriko/Fusarium wilt/V95683 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(noodleslovespapriko)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Noodleslovespapriko/Fusarium_wilt?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Fusarium wilt
 * Fusarium wilt

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

The lead of the article does not appear to be altered due to the changes made by this user, however, I would only recommend adding a sentence to the lead since the edits only apply to Fusarium Wilt management. The current lead does not include the edits the user is proposing to make so I would recommend this addition.

The content the user added appears to be extremely relevant to the topic and informative. While some of the sources are over twenty years old, the topic of Fusarium Wilt may not require the latest research if past research and data on the topic are still relevant and applicable. Still, I would recommend the user check to make sure that there is not more recent sources and if so, make sure these sources are conveying the same information used. I would also recommend adding an additional sentence about what "0.2" or higher means. I believe there is a way to do this without bias. All the content seems to belong and reliable besides these issues.

The content added appears to be neutral, the only suggestion in terms of content I could make is to take out the words "extremely" as that may indicate some bias and be unnecessary in the context. Other than that, the content is very neutral and I have no other critiques.

Checking through each source, the sources appear to reflect what the user added to the article. Again, I would recommend checking to see if there are more up to date sources, but given the topic I understand if this is not an issue. The links all appear to work and the sources are diverse, including several government documents and peer reviewed papers.

The content added is very clear, concise, and easy to read- good job! I also could not find any grammatical or spelling errors, which is also great. Lastly, the content appears to be well organized, especially due to the users breaking into a second paragraph to discuss the Montreal Protocol.

Overall, I think these edits definitely add to the overall quality of the article and make it more complete. The strengths of the content added are the further details about the Montreal Protocol and the EPA, especially giving more recent information and updating the original article which is important. Again, the only thing I think would improve the edits is to take out the "extremely," double check the sources, and adding an additional sentence explaining what "0.2 or higher" means, other than that great work.