User:Peach-boi1/Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia/BornAYasMain Peer Review

General info
(Peach-boi 1)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Peach-boi1/Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Clarity

- The article does a great job at explaining what the article is, what they do, and how they operate, it provides a good basis of knowledge going forward in the article.

- The article is written well and is mostly clear throughout the writing of the article. As someone who knew nothing of the organization beforehand, I can safely say that I know quite a bit on them after reading up on them. I will say though that some of the headers- mainly the Reports & Findings header, could confuse other readers who may just briefly read though the article and not go as in depth as say, someone peer reviewing [ ;) ] might due to the information regarding the Annapolis sinking. Other readers may very well miss the one specific reference to the Annapolis sinking under the Completed Projects heading, and may not know what the Annapolis sinking is. So I think that adding a brief introduction describing what the sinking was, could help provide some additional context to the header's information.

Structure

- I think that most of the structure of the article is placed well, but I do think that the Media Coverage header is placed in a not so great spot. I think because it is shorter in length, and that it doesn't necessarily pertain to the 'key ideas/flow' of the article (getting introduced to the organization, learning about what they do etc) it can be placed closer to the end of the article. Having the Methods and the Completed Projects header above that, will add a nicer flow for readers learning about the organization instead of finding out who they are, what they do, where they have been covered in the media, AND THEN, how they operate and their previously completed work- it just feels a bit off when learning about it that way.

Balanced Coverage

- The article does a good job at explaining what the organization is, but some of the paragraphs are significantly shorter in length than others i.e the Reports & Findings header compared to the Article Draft header. Granted, this is because of the nature of the headers, and the fact that the introduction to the organization has a lot more information that can be verbalized into an article- however if there are findings for one of their projects (the 'Annapolis' sinking), then there must be some on the other projects they have worked on.

Neutrality

- The article does a good job at maintaining neutrality when talking about the organization and the projects that they've been involved in. There is no part of the article that is making you 'feel' a certain type of way about the organization but instead is just talking about what they are, and how they work. This is backed by the deliberate choice to not add the fact that they are a registered tax deductible charity in Canada. Adding that could've in my opinion added some bias to the article as people who read the article that may be looking to find a charity to donate to, might be more inclined to make a donation to them as they could get a tax write off for it. (or maybe they wouldn't, I don't know how taxes work lol)

Sources

- In the Article Draft header, the final paragraph when you mention that the 'Society operates without any paid volunteers', albeit it being from the original Wikipedia article- you can add a citation to that claim which can help add validity to the article (not that it isn't valid but just to add another bit of validity). The ARSBC website themselves have that information public on their website so the source is right there.

- The sources used in the Wikipedia article are mostly peer reviewed when they need to be, and it was a nice touch to add the link to the Government of Canada website that showed that the organization was in fact a taz deductible tax organization that they claimed they are on their website.

Suggestions For Improvement

- The article is well written and without being nit-picky there is not a lot that I can suggest for improvements. It is written in a flowing structure with little grammatical and spelling mistakes. However, I would say that a nice addition to the article that could be incorporated is to go into more depth about some of the completed projects the organization has done. I know the reference to what they have done is in the article under the Completed Projects header, but to take it a step further, the organizations website itself goes into detail into some of the completed projects, such as 'The Powell River Project' (https://artificialreefsocietybc.ca/the-powell-river-project.html), or the ​BOEING 737 Project (https://artificialreefsocietybc.ca/boeing-737.html). This could add a lot more substance to the article and add a lot of information/context to some of the projects they've already completed to readers.

- Aside from the aforementioned placement of the Media Coverage header placement, adding some extra information about other topics revolving the organization could also add more substance to the article. In addition to that, there are some paragraphs that have a lot of information (i.e under the Mission header), that does not have associated sources with the information being present. While there is a source linked in it, other claims (such as the claim that 'the organization is the leading organization dedicated to converting old ships into marine permanent habitats' do not have a citation for them).