User:SeaCowSnuggles/Mangrove restoration/WikiCardy223 Peer Review

General info
SeaCowSnuggles
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SeaCowSnuggles/Mangrove restoration
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Mangrove restoration

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.)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been changed a bit with a new sentence added for clairty of a word. Other than this change nothing else was added to reflect changes made in the body of the article. No new sections were made so there wasn't much of a need for addtions to the article refelcting the new content made.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the first sentence tells the reader exaclty what the paper is going be about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead is a smaller paragrpah, some of the sections are described but there are a few that are not. The editor could probably introduce the sections that aren't referenced in the lead to add to it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not include information not touched on in the article. Each sentence mentions pulls from some of the sections throughout the content.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead isnt overly detailed, I think the lead could include more information regarding giving an overview of what the article could be about. The editor could add a sentence about how mangroves are essential for keeping climate change under control which is why it is so importat to conserve them. A sentence about the stakeholder engagement section could also be added since the edtior added quite a bit of information to it. By doing this is it lets the reader know that there is a section about mangroves effting climate change and stakeholder engagement.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added was relevant to the topic and is very beneficial to the article as well. The content added to the stakeholder engagement section was especially well written.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The sources for the content added has references ranging from 2010-2020 so I would say it is relevent to the topic. The information added with sources from 2010 wasn't infomration that vaired with time, it was more definitions.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Since the article is specific to restoration of mangroves I think the topics adressed throughout the article are on point. I cannot think of any content that is missing when reading this article. Maybe something about political implications or effects that the political elements have on mangrove restoration. For example, maybe there is an act/law that certain state inact to preserve mangroves. The section about "Mangroves for the Future" mentions the government but I think it could be expanded on.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Due to the topic of the artice there isn't an influence of historically underrepresented popuations. N/A

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content added is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No. The content only puts an empahsis on the importance of mangroves and why restoration is put in place. It may change a readers point of view after reading it but I think its not purposefully persuading the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, the content is a good relection of the sources that support the information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources for the content added has references ranging from 2010-2020 so I would say it is relevent to the topic. The information added with sources from 2010 wasn't infomration that vaired with time, it was more definitions.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * From looking through the soruces it appears that the authors represent a varitey of individuals.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * The sources the editor added are reliable and the sources present in the article prior to the edit were also peer-reviewed. I think that the soruces found are refections of the best possible sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the link provided work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is very well-written and easy to read. There isnt any choppiness and it was a very nice read.
 * For ease of reading (this is a very small nit pick) I would try and not use the word "or" twice. This is the first sentence of the "Evironmental context" section. "Historically, mangroves have been identified two different ways: the species of trees and shrubs that can tolerate brackish water conditions, or the species that fall under the mangrove family, Rhizophoraceae or trees of the genus Rhizophora" I would change the second or to "as well as" or somthing else.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I saw no stand out grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media N/A
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only N/A
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added definatly improved the quaility of the article. Though not a lot of content was added the content added was needed. The editor did a great job in combing through the article and seeing exactly what was missing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strenghs are that the information is reliable and relevent to the topic. The editor also had a strong writing style that made it easy to read and makes the reader feel like they can trust what the editor is saying.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The main thing I feel could be improved would just be filling up the lead a bit more with more overview information and adding a section involving policy implimentation.

Goals and Accomplishements Overview

 * I think your goals were definatley acheviable and you did a great job of getting them done. While goifn through your article I didn't see any sources that looked poor and they all looked relaible. Your first goal of adding more in-depth information was obviously accomplished and you did an awesome job. Again the only think I think would've been interesting to see was policy/government inovlement.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting