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

General info
Peach-boi1
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peach-boi1/Artificial_Reef_Society_of_British_Columbia?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Artificial Reef Society of British Columbia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Strong lead, concise and answers the who, what, and where questions of the topic. I would suggest addressing why it exists in the first sentence, but this is covered immediately in the following paragraph which seems sufficient. However, adding a comma to the end of the first sentence and stating the purpose of the organization in the same sentence may something to consider. The following paragraph can then be used to provide more details about the purpose of the organization rather than introducing it.


 * The fact that the organization uses sunken ships to create the reefs should be incorporated into the second paragraph of the lead when discussing the purpose of the organization, for example "Its aim is to create environmentally and economically sustainable artificial reefs by using sunken ships . . .". When the sunken ships are mentioned in the third paragraph with no prior context, their relevance is a bit confusing.

Content


 * The method section of the content could be expanded on - how are the ships sunk? The method section jumps from explaining how the ships are prepared to describing how they become reefs after sinking, so there is a gap of information in between. Additionally, how/why do they become like real reefs, and how long does this take? This would be a good point to pull on some scholarly literature to briefly explain the science behind this.
 * Grammar note: The last sentence of the method section should be rephrased, starting it with "While" when it doesn't lead into a comma makes it awkward to read.


 * Since one of the goals of editing articles is to deal with an equity gap on Wikipedia, when mentioning how these reefs/ships are of interest to scuba divers and the science community, you could also address the involvement/interest of (or relevance to) indigenous groups.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added seems neutral, but no conflicting viewpoints with the organization are mentioned. If there are any conflicting viewpoints on the topic these should be mentioned, for example if there is anything in the media about community groups who may disagree with the actions of the organization.

Sources and References


 * The last paragraph of the lead is missing a citation.
 * There are few references to scholarly (journal) articles - more of these would boost the credibility of the article.
 * The main source cited within the article is the organization's own website. Although this is an important source, it will not provide a balanced view of the organization's actions because it will only speak in its favour. More unbiased sources need to be cited when discussing the actions of the organization.

Organization


 * The article is concise and broken down into sections that make sense. Under "completed projects" there could be more information about each project though, instead of just a list of links.
 * The only grammatical note is the one I left about the sentence in the method section under "Content".

Images and Media


 * There is not yet any images or media in the article - a great place to include these would be under "Completed projects" as examples. Additionally, a photo of a ship being prepared (ex. people working on stripping it, or a ship being sunk) would improve the method section.