User talk:142.162.117.56

Peer Review
Felicitycrane (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * When reading the content in the article I noticed that there was no bias or any form of persuasion, the content was neutral which is great
 * I liked how there was a "see more" section to direct you to the other stewardship councils.
 * While checking over the references they all seemed to be creditable resources.
 * I noticed under the section on criticism that there was a typo (totally an honest mistake but I still feel the need to inform you on it). Where is says "...which has been know to..." shouldn't it be "known"?
 * Because the article is very short I feel like I did not get to fully understand all aspects of the ASC.
 * I did a quick search and came across a aquaculture stewardship council website that i thought could be helpful to further educate the wikipedia community on all aspects of the ASC. And it looks pretty legit but I am no wikipedia expert. Heres the link: https://www.asc-aqua.org/about-us/about-the-asc/
 * When reading the article, the only section that tells the reader anything about ASC is the criticism section. To further inform you could add some information, for example: about what countries the farms are in or how many farms there are.