User talk:Christian Winsor/sandbox

Peer Review Article Evaluation
Aquaculture Stewardship Council

-Introductory paragraph is missing information which would give insight into the nature of the organization. What does it do? Who is involved? Where are they based? How do they approach their mandates/ what are their mandates?

-The phrase "sets a standard" implies more of a positive opinion on their work than it does explain what they do. It doesn't become clear until the second section "Accreditation Process" that the organization is literally responsable for creating the standards of ethical practices in aquatic agriculture. Try to avoid non-neutral language when setting up an idea that could be perceived as such.

-Most of the sources seemed reliable to me with the exception of the first which is a self-published source from the ASC.

-There's a good deal of information missing (potentially in someone else's sandbox? nothing else has been published on the article however so I can't be sure if this is being worked on elsewhere) such as details on the affiliated organizations, the history and development of the ASC, the personnel involved etc.. Vacdy (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Article Evaluation
Reviewed by Seeds of Hope group

-In this article some of the links are not working.

-Really good effort but there needs to be more research done and added into the article.

-All the references are reliable and working.

-Overall great draft so far, keep up the great work!

Peer Review from Felicity Crane
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.

Griffyn1987 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review from Holly Styles
This article on "The Aquaculture Stewardship Council" is very well written and laid out. There are many headings dividing the different aspects of the topics down into an easy reading manner. The article begins with a topic sentence introducing what exactly The Aquaculture Stewardship Council that gives the reader a brief summary of the definition which is a nice way to begin a wikipedia article. The article is properly coded in the highlighting of certain words to bring to other wikipedia pages and there are also sub-headings such as "See Also", "Notes & References" and "External Links" with highlighted topics to bring to other wikipedia pages with related topics which was a smart addition to the article. The article also has proper sentence flow that has fluidity and correct grammar throughout that creates professionalism for the reader. There were no biases or persuasiveness used as it remained factual and informative to the facts of the research. However, there is also room for more research and content to be added to help elaborate more on the topic that could be added to the final draft. Overall, excellent work.

Hollystyles16 (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Griffyn1987 (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)