User:Sgkimbrell/Estuary/HeathGHioto Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ally, Nadya, Sally, and Savannah


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Sgkimbrell/Estuary - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article was very informative and well written, with a few minor grammatical mistakes. For example, I noticed that the fifth sentence in the "Human Activities" section did not make a lot of grammatical sense, as I think it was missing the word was. I would also change the P and N used to represent phosphorus and nitrogen to phosphorus and nitrogen, just for clarity. However, as mentioned previously, the article was still very informative. I would also note that the flow of the article might make more sense to have the first section being the biogeochemical cycle. Despite this though I did not see any significant viewpoints that were left out, nor did the article draw conclusions or attempt to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view. The references for the articles are from reliable sources, with all critical information being cited.

Overall, your article went in depth on the effects of eutrophication. I personally really like that you showed that some animals thrived in nutrient poor waters, as well as how mangroves would be impacted because of eutrophication. Although I think the flow would benefit from moving the biogeochemical cycle section, I did really love the organization for the article. I also liked how you included how important estuaries are for biodiversity, and I felt the wording in that particular section to be outstanding. I also liked what you choose to focus on with eutrophication and biogeochemical cycles, especially with how it has cascading effects with carbon dioxide. I felt the images used really enhanced the article,