User:Sgkimbrell/Estuary/Aculpepper1324 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Sgkimbrell


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sgkimbrell/Estuary&veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Estuary

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 1) The edits made to the original article do a good job of explaining the effects that eutrophication can have on various aspects of estuaries, such as plant and animal life. They explained the effects of eutrophication on animal life very well by including the Whitefish example.
 * 2) The only changes I would suggest would be to possibly simplify some of the language especially in the Biogeochemical Cycles section of the draft. Maybe explain how it works a little more or write out "Nitrogen" and "Phosphorous" the first time you refer to them. This would just help some users better understand the article!
 * 3) I didn't see much that could apply to my article, but reading this draft did make me consider adding an economic impact section to my article.
 * 4) The sections are well organized and the order they are presented in makes perfect sense. The impact on estuarine plants is a good place to start because that directly impacts animal life and leads right into that section.
 * 5) I think they did a good job of including many of the perspectives presented in their sources. There are no significant viewpoints left out of their draft.
 * 6) This article is very neutral and simply presents the facts for the reader to form their own opinion. There is no indication of persuasion or convincing for a particular point of view.
 * 7) This article does not make generalized claims. Points of view are well represented and explained.
 * 8) Most statements and ideas within this draft are pulled from reliable source such as scientific, peer-reviewed journals and articles.
 * 9) There are a few statements that are based on more than one of the credible sources. In this situation, I do not think that this negatively impacts the article in any way. Sometimes this is necessary in order to accurately explain the scientific processes being discussed.
 * 10) There are a few sentences at the beginning of the first section (Effects of Eutrophication on Estuarine Plants), regarding salt marshes and some of the vegetation present, that are not directly linked to any sources.