User talk:Eggsbendyboy/sandbox


 * 1) The "Studies" section is very well done, doing a good job summarizing the research that has already been done on the topic. It gives a good general overview on the impact of trawling with statistics that have been found and it is automatically supported with evidence since we know the study that the data is from. I thought it was also placed well, near the end since people would want to read more about the general impact of trawling first and then they would look for the sources after.


 * 1) The only thing I would suggest to add is more visuals, this seems like a topic that could be aided a lot by seeing some of the impact that trawling causes on these ecosystems or seeing how trawling is conducted. Not sure how easy it would be to obtain images for these, but adding them could contribute a lot to putting things into perspective.


 * 1) As mentioned above, adding pictures if possible - otherwise you may consider adding a section for types of trawling. Not sure if it would apply fully, but it looks like you have two different types already in bottom trawling vs. midwater trawling - if there are others it could be worth creating a separate section for that.


 * 1) I think the use of the studies section is very good for consolidating the results of research that is already done. It is a great way to conclude the article by straight up providing other sources that people can refer to if they want to learn more / gain a more in depth look.

Jaden2xU (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Article Peer Review
Sam's peer review --Invay64 (talk) 23:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC) 1. What does the article or section do well? I think your additions to the Selectivity section did a lot to bolster the information that was in the article. A lot of the specific figures you cite are effective at showing the magnitude of the problem. I think the addition of the Studies section is also a good choice since it brings more scientific evidence that is lacking from the original article.

2. What changes would you suggest? The main thing would probably be some changes in terms of the article's organization. It seems like the Selectivity section can probably be broken up further since selectivity seems to be one aspect of why trawling might be harmful.

3. What is the most important thing the author could do to improve his/her contribution? It seems like it could be helpful to discuss more of the pushback from environmental groups as well as what regulations are currently in place in terms of trawling. You already mention some of these aspects but this could probably be bolstered with more discussion of the actual movement.

4. What did you glean from your classmate's work? You pulled a lot of good information from scientific sources so I'll likely work on using more of these as well.