User:Osabby13/Indian Ocean garbage patch/Kzakarian Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Osabby13


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Osabby13/Indian Ocean Garbage Patch
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There does not seem to be a Lead section at this stage, perhaps because Olivia is the first person to add edits to this particular article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Although the article edits are not structured with a specific Lead, the first sentence of the article body provides a general statement concerning the accumulation of plastic making up various ocean garbage patches.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The article edits pertain to more random topics than those addressed in the article itself, which could be a good expansion point for the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the article edits mention ocean currents, plastic pileups, and other interesting bits that could overall enhance the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, most of the information is derived from sources published in the early 2000s time period.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there are definitely areas that could be expanded on, such as the mentioning of ocean currents and the larger plastic problem.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the added content seems to have a neutral tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, all the article edits appear to take a neutral perspective.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, Olivia provides six strong sources containing information about garbage patches that she addresses in her argument.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, most of the sources either discuss the problem with garbage accumulation and ocean pollution or efforts being taken to mitigate these issues.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, most of the sources were published in the 2014-2015 time frame or slightly earlier.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, there are mostly American articles along with some articles from newspapers and magazines like Hakai Magazine and Japan Times Weekly.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) One of the articles comes from the government agency NOAA, but since most of the articles were from sources such as magazines, it may be beneficial to refer to some more scholarly articles as well while making additional article edits.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links that I checked work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is concise, clear, and straightforward for the reader.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, there are no grammatical or spelling errors from what I can see.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The sentences individually are clear, but there could be more content concerning some of the new topics mentioned like ocean currents and the discovery of two other garbage patches in the South Pacific and North Atlantic oceans.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, the image Olivia incorporated into her sandbox page illustrates the growing plastic problem as bottles and other garbage wash up onto beaches.
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes, the image is in line with the article body.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, the article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements of having support from several secondary sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is a fairly good amount of sources listed, but again it may be helpful to also look at some scholarly articles to get more detailed information on the garbage patch and plastic problem topics.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? At this point, the sandbox draft does not contain enough content to divide the article edits up into sections, but as more edits are contributed to the sandbox draft, there will be more of a potential to establish section headings for each topic.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, I think the article has benefited from this added information and will continue to improve as more content is contributed to the sandbox draft over time.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? There are some new interesting points made about ocean currents and the increasing plastic problem that would make for great article sections if further developed.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think the biggest improvement would be to refer to more scholarly sources and expand on some of the new topics described to make the article additions more cohesive.