User talk:Biostudent2/sandbox

Hi! Hope this peer review helps in any way.

Breakwater Page

1. Structure

The structure is appropriate. The flow of the Unintended consequences could be improved by connecting the topics. This could be done by writing "which can also change the topographic landscape". Alternatively, just incorporating "changing the seafloor's topographical landscape from its natural state.[1]" could improve flow, as the mention of sediment accretion was already earlier in the paragraph. The Environmental effects section is very well written and flows well. It will be a notable addition to the article.

2. Organization and Tone

As mentioned, flow in Unintended consequences could be improved. The location and organization of Environmental Effects is well thought out. The order of these paragraphs makes sense for the article. The tone is appropriate and matches the existing article. Using the term "has been shown to disrupt existing species communities" could improve confidence in sources and research. It presents the info more as fact than prediction.

3. Citations

Citations are all notable and reliable. This will greatly improve the article.

Riprap

1. Structure

Environmental consequences are a significant addition and flow well with the rest of the article. "One such effect" can be changed to "one such change" in order to match the previous sentence and improve flow.

2. Organization and Tone

More confident language should be used. "Ripraps may cause morphological changes" can be changed to "Ripraps cause morphological changes". You have reliable sources to back up any claims and are able to make statements of fact. The second sentence within the Organic Material Effects should be separated. The long length makes it difficult to read and understand. It is unclear what "yet these conditions may prevent adverse circumstances for species not accustom to this environment" means. Does this mean that the environment may be suitable for some and not others? This phrase needs clarification, especially of the phrase "prevent adverse circumstances".

3. Citations

Citations are reliable and notable. Addition of in-line citations is notable and greatly improves the reliability of the article, and increases article quality.

Seawall

1. Structure

Edits are appropriate and add useful information. Use of parentheses to provide context and definitions greatly improves readability. Retitling the Ecosystem issues to "Ecosystem impacts" could be helpful. Use of issues in the subsection title feels redundant.

2. Organization and Tone

Organization is appropriate and tone is appropriate as well. There is an improvement of tone in the edited sections, as more specific examples are given, making it more appropriate for a general audience. Including more detail regarding what physical conditions make seawalls unsuitable habitat would be helpful, as this sentence is very vague. Replacing "may disrupt" with "can disrupt" would improve tone and confidence appropriate for a factual article. You have citations to back up any claims.

3. Citations

Citations are all notable, reliable and well placed within the article. They support all necessary statements.

Artificial Island

1. Structure

Structure and flow are logical and paragraphs are easily read. Structure matches the rest of the article, and provides a noticable improvement to the section.

2. Organization and Tone

Tone is appropriate. Editing the word "may" to "can" in the original article will help match your tone in this paragraph. Defining "coral plume turbidity" and briefly explaining why bacterial activity increased would help in readability. These are concepts that can pique curiosity in readers, but there is little explanation of them. Understanding these concepts seems to be important to the information you are presenting.

3. Citations

Citations are all notable, reliable and well placed within the article. They support all necessary statements.

Gpappy (talk) 00:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Here is my peer review based on the WikiEd rubric.

ARTICLE

Organization:

"Rip-rap" should not be capitalized unless it is the first word of a sentence.

For your headers and sub-headers, only the first word should be capitalized. ("Environmental Consequences" and "Ecosystem Impacts" need to be corrected.)

For the seawall page, the use of parentheses to clarify terminology (e.g. "value (morphological characteristics)") seems inappropriate. In general, I feel the many parentheses could be changed into full sentences or turned into addendums as notes.

The H in "(Higher calcification levels ..." should not be capitalized. There are instances of incorrect capitalization under the artificial island page too. There should be no space before the citations.

Content:

On the breakwater page, the environmental effects section could be better organized. The current logical flow seems redundant. It proceeds as reduced heterogeneity > reduced diversity. Reduced heterogeneity > increased UV/temp > reduced diversity.

Balance: -

Tone:

Fewer uses of parentheses would be more Wikipedia appropriate.

REFERENCES

In good shape.

EXISTING VS NEW ARTICLE

The additional sections fill key gaps through small additions. The new sections are logical and relevant.

PistaciaveraL (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)