User:NovaKK/Marine Debris/Cconniff13 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Keenlynk/Marine Debris


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keenlynk/Marine_Debris?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Marine debris

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Guiding Questions

1.Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

No, my peer worked on the body of the article, not the lead.

2. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

N/A

3. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

N/A

4. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

N/A

5. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

N/A

Content

1.Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes, the focus on the amounts of trash ending up in the environment is related to the article on Marine debris.

2. Is the content added up-to-date?

Yes, the content focuses on the effects Covid-19 has had on the amount fo marine dumping.

3. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I thought the content was relevant and presented good coverage of the topic. In the 4th sentence, there is either information missing from one sentence or a type because there is a capital "In" in the middle of a sentence.

4. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, somewhat. The article talks about the liter in oceans in Kenya, which is an underrepresented population, but does not specifically talk about underrepresented topics.

Sources and References

1.Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes, the facts are cited and with reliable sources.

2. Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?

Yes

3. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Yes

4. Are the sources current?

Yes

5. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes, the articles are written by a range of diverse authors.

6. Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?

The sources were all scholarly sources from journals or health directives so I think they were good ones to use.

7. Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes

Organization

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

Yes, the content is clear and concise.

2. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

The only error is in the 4th sentence, where it appears like a sentence was started and then a different sentence was started without deleting the original words.

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

Yes, I think so. Possibly there could be more of a transition from information on Kenya to Hong Kong, but the topics were kept together and easy to follow.

Images and Media

1.Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

Yes, the article has many images that help enhance the reading and understanding of marine dumping.

2. Are images well-captioned?

I thought the captions are good because they are clear and concise and quickly inform the reader of what they are seeing.

3. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

Yes

4. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

The images are placed well on the right side of the text next to the topic that the image is showing.

Overall Impressions

1.Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

I think the content added to the overall article well by adding more update information about how our current situation is effecting marine dumping. I enjoyed that the added material was bringing in a new angle to the article instead of adding more to existing content.

2. What are the strengths of the content added?

I thought the content was relevant and really interesting. I also thought that the content provided an interesting possibility of looking at how Covid-19 could possible cause less trash in the ocean because of beach closure. The content uses strong facts and is clearly stated.

3. How can the content added be improved?

I think further information connecting the Covid-19 effect to marine dumping would be interesting and help improve the article. Also, the 4th sentence needs to be fixed for grammar and to clarify what is being said.