User:Sarahbrown5/Resource depletion/MelCarruthers 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
Hi Sarah! Here is my peer review of your article draft. I hope it helps!

Lead

As of right now, your Lead section does not fully reflect the new content you have added to this article. However, I see you have made a note to rework this and update it.

I find that the Lead lacks an introductory sentence. Rather than providing a sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic, it seems to jump straight into a definition of what resource depletion is. Maybe you could start with something broader that introduces the idea of high consumption rates before narrowing the focus to resource depletion.

The original article adequately includes a brief description of the article's major sections. It outlines the different types of resource depletion that are discussed in the article. I would just recommend that the Lead section mention the moral aspect of resource depletion.

I noticed that the Lead section mentions the concept of "slash-and-burn" agricultural practices but this is not mentioned anywhere else in the article.

Overall, I would say that the Lead section is concise and not overly detailed. Just some minor adjustments need to be made in order to make it more accurate and representative of the rest of the article.

Content

I noticed that the main section added to this article is overfishing which is certainly relevant content to the overall topic. You made a note about possibly adding a section about sustainable fishing but I think it would be better if this is omitted. It might drift too far from the main topic. In addition, there is already a Wikipedia article about sustainable fishery. Therefore, you may simply choose to briefly mention this and link the article rather than explaining it in any detail.

Overall, the content added is also up-to-date with sources from within the past year. However, it might be useful to add more academic sources. This section relies on sources by non-profit organizations that may not be as reliable as peer-reviewed articles and other factual publications.

All the content is relevant. The only thing I would consider adding is a section dedicated to the history of resource depletion. For example, a paragraph mentioning its causes like colonialism and economic growth and origins like the Industrial Revolution.

Tone and Balance

Overall, I think there are sentences in this article that can be rewritten to be less subjective. For example, I am not a fan of inserting a rhetorical question into the article. Here is a quote from the Resource Scarcity as a Moral Problem section that is not based on facts: "The moral problem is, given this history, which has shaped different countries' development and competitiveness, can competition be considered to distribute resources in a fair and equitable way?". Aside from this, the article still makes an effort to remain unbiased. For example, phrases like "this may be due to..." ensure neutrality and don't make any opinionated based assumptions.

Sources and References

Looking at the added section on overfishing, it appears that it is well-cited. However, as previously mentioned, I think this article would be stronger if the information was backed up by more factual and academic sources. When looking at the article as a whole, I noticed that CBC has been cited a few times which is not a very reliable source as it is likely to include bias.

Most of the sources are current with the oldest source being from 1956 because it refers to a theory that was developed a long period of time ago. As a whole, there is a diverse spectrum of others and the article does not seem to heavily depend on certain sources.

The majority of the links work and are accessible. Some of the peer-reviewed articles are only accessible if you buy them or log in via an institution.

I would recommend reviewing the section Resource Scarcity as a Moral Problem since it seems to be missing citations to support what is being said.

Organization

The content contains some awkward sentences that can be reworded to be more clear and easy to read. There are also some minor grammatical errors, especially instances where commas are misused.

Examples (changes in bold):


 * "The use of either of these forms of resources beyond their rate of replacement is considered to be resource depletion."
 * "The value of a resource is a direct result of its availability in nature and the cost of extracting the resource. The more a resource is depleted, the more the value of the resource increases."
 * "Resource depletion accounting uses data provided by countries to estimate the adjustments needed due to their use and depletion of the natural capital available to them."
 * "Depletion accounting factors in several different influences such as the number of years until resource exhaustion, the cost of resource extraction, and the demand for the resource."
 * "Theorists argue that the implementation of resource depletion accounting is necessary for developing countries."

These are just a couple of examples of minor mistakes. I recommend using Grammarly to check the article's grammar, spelling, and sentence structure before publishing.

Overall, the content is well-organized and broken up into comprehensive sections and subsections

Images and Media

In general, there is a fair share of images throughout this article that are well captioned. More images may be added to further add some more visual representations but I don't think it is absolutely necessary.

Overall Impressions

Overall, I think the content added improved the overall quality of the article by providing another example of resource depletion that has been present both historically and contemporarily. I appreciate the length of this new section as it is not overpowering compared to the rest of the article. I few more touch-ups are needed and a revision of the sources used. Other than that, it looks great and I'm happy to see some improvement to this article!

- Melanie