User:Sarahbrown5/Resource depletion/Atticusdarwin Peer Review

General info
Sarahbrown5
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarahbrown5/Resource_depletion?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Resource depletion:

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.)

Main Lead of the draft hasn't changed from the original article.

The lead of the new content is perhaps too informative. It is brief at first and helps to outline the topics that will be discussed in the subsection but a lot of information is given right away in the lead such as what types of species suffer from overfishing, which could be its own topic. Apart from this I believe the lead is quite good as it attracts the viewer's attention and gives a good understanding on what the viewer should expect to find when reading the rest of the article. Some of the information in the lead isn't added yet such as economic damage and marine ecosystems.

The new content added is related to the article, as overfishing leads to and is a form of resource depletion. The content and resources added are up to date. Many of the sources are recent (last 5 years or more recent) and seem to be either professional websites, or sites that are genuinely concerned for overfishing, which gives validity to the information provided. All the links work but what is noted is that there is a lack of peer reviewed sources and scholarly journals.

The content does not appear to be biased nor does it encourage the viewer to change viewpoints on the matter. There is a neutral tone that is consistent throughout the article. The content is clear and easy to read. There are no obvious grammatical or formatting errors and it is reasonably organized.

No media/images added.

Overall, the original article is somewhat improved as a new subsection is covered in relation to resource depletion. If the information/section added was longer in length it will greatly benefit the original article, but it is understandable what is given so far as this is just a draft and the author of the article has outlined their own areas for improvement and further additions to the article. The main strengths to the additions are that a lot of information is hyperlinked, so a viewer interested in this topic can easily be redirected internally or externally to find more information on the topic. The information is well cited and very easy to read. It is quite reasonably organized and brief but gets straight to the point. In summary the content can be improved with images or media that help provide a visual of Overfishing and the length can be increased. A few more subsections that the author has discussed about adding would also greatly benefit the article.