User:Sarahbrown5/Resource depletion/Jmvelasquez Peer Review

General info
Sarahbrown5
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Sarahbrown5/Resource depletion::
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Resource depletion:

Evaluate the drafted changes
The editor did not update the lead, however they left a note-to-self to do so. As they mentioned, the lead should represent what is being discussed in the article and also the information that will be/is added. Furthermore, I would try and find some citations to support the information already present.

The new content added is very much relevant to the topic. It is not included in the original article and I feel as that is a very inmportant contribution! There is plenty of detailed information but the author introduces it in a concise and clear manner. I really like how a definition was given for this that are not as familiar with the topic. Perhaps instead of listing a bunch of tuna and countries, you can just say "Overfishing predominantly affects various tuna species. Regions particularly susceptible to overfishing including the Arctic, the East African coast, coasts in Asia, and central/latin America, and the Carribean." Too much fluff and people can go to the articles for those places and find the information there. I agree with the idea of expanding on the negative consequences and impacts for marine ecosystems, economies, and food security. The common causes of overfishing was really interesting to read and is well detailed, however I'm questioning whether this much detail is required for an article about "Resource Depletion". I think it's a good idea to briefly touch on how overfishing is caused, but this information can be found in the main article about Overfishing. If you choose to keep this information, I would suggest finding an article to replace citation #8 (What is fisheries subsidy?). This isn't really a peer-reviewed article and doesn't mention where they get their information.

The content that has been added does not appear to be heavily biased towards a particular position; and does not attempty to persuade the reader in favour of one position or another. No viewpoints are overrepresented or underrepresented. The sources chosen (besides that one I mentioned) are very good. Despite there not being many peer-reviewed/scientific articles, the websites used are reliable. Perhaps some peer-reviewed/scientific articles would be a good idea too, just to get some different perspectives. I really like how you added article links for other articles, this is really nice and helps people explore other related topics!

I know this article is already very informative and maybe that is why no other sections were edited, but maybe in the future try double checking the citations and ensure they are up-to-date and links are working! Overall this bit is well-written with no grammatical errors. Well done! This sounds super cool!