User talk:Crystaross95/sandbox

'''Peer review – Climate change adaptation '''

I must admit that I didn’t really get what your final topic was going to be, since you had a section on “Article Addition” – Bioswale, but you also had “Edit Wiki Topic, April 11”. I decided to take a look at that bit, so on Climate Change. I also uploaded a word file in Canvas. However I am not sure where you can see it...

Lead: Since you didn’t make any adjustments to this section, it is not so relevant to review this part. However, there is not much mentioned about policies and how they could influence the adaption, so you could consider mention it somewhere in the lead if you think it is relevant enough.

Clear structure: The article you decided to work on, is pretty large. It has a lot of different sections and subsections and you are working just on a small part of it, so in that sense, you are not going to be able to change that much of the structure. However, I think it could be useful to write a sort of mini introduction on the “considerations and general recommendations” -section, since to me it was not clear straight away what was to be found in this section. Just a consideration.

Balancing act: As mentioned before, this article is really long, so it is a bit hard to judge whether the section you are working on is balanced or not. However, I think the fact that you are giving a little more background information on the fundamental principles, and that you said a little more on regulatory policies in general, definitely makes this section more balanced. This information clears things out more, so that is definitely a good thing. You want to add examples of policies and their results, and I think that could definitely be useful. However, keep in mind that you don’t want to cover too much here (since it are just supporting examples) and that you don’t just pick examples from the U.S. to keep it ‘balanced’.

Neutral content: In the section you added, I do not see any content that would suggest it is written in a non-neutral away. Reliable sources: Citing Rosenbaum is actually a good idea in this case, and the other source you added is a scientific article so not much complaints about that. I am just curious how you want to cover the sources for the examples of policies, since they cannot be of governmental nature. Probably another book on environmental policies would give you enough insight information to start with. Scientific researches might be useful if they use case studies. You could search for that too.

I have no additional comments on your grammar or spelling, since the sentences you added, to me, they seem ok and clear. You have added only a few sentences on the article so far, so there is not that much to comment on. Considering the content of this class, I think you picked the right section to work on and I think your contribution could be useful if you extend it a little bit. The fact that the article is already pretty long makes it a little difficult to review you on a few of the given components. Marijnekramer (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2018 (UTC)