User talk:Gpappy/sandbox

Your additions to the Microplastics article appear to focus in on one section. As such you did not work on some sections of the article that are discussed in the rubric, which is totally fine. However, in my review, I will include comments on these sections of the Microplastics article in order to give suggestions for other areas of improvement of this article.

1.	Lead Section

Introductory Sentence: The introductory sentence is concise and direct. This is indicative of a good introductory sentence and as such it is okay as is.

Summary: The summary is good overall but fails to address some of the sections addressed throughout the article. For example, the filtering, proposed solutions and policy and legislation sections that are discussed later in the article receive no mention in the introduction.

Context: The context is good as all of the information presented in the lead section is further addressed in more detail in other sections throughout the paper.

2.	Article

Organization: The organization of the article overall is okay but some sections could be moved around in order to create a better flow of the article. For example, the “Where microplastics can be found” section may be better suited to go before the “potential effects on the environment section”. The grammar could also be better at times. For example, in the “Biological integration into organisms” section the following sentence “In 2019 it has been reported the very first European records of microplastic items in amphibians’ stomach content”, the grammar in the start of this sentence seems incorrect and should be adjusted for a better flowing reading process. In terms of the grammar and organization for the section that you added to, both the grammar and organization thus far appear to be in good shape. Content: The content of the article overall is good as it covers relevant material and links to other articles for background information. The content of the additions that you have made is generally good however links to the “POPs” and “hydrocarbons” articles may be beneficial in order to provide additional background information for readers”

Balance: The coverage overall is balanced, however, the “Biological integration into organisms” section seems to give a disproportionate amount of coverage to humans rather than any other organism. The coverage that you provide in your edits to the article are neutral and balanced, as it should be.

Tone: Both the general article as well as your additions to the article evoke a neutral and very encyclopedic tone.

3.	References

Citations: The article overall does a decent job in terms of adding citations where necessary. In some instances, however, such as towards the end of the “Primary microplastics” section, some sentences need proper citation to show where relevant information came from. In terms of citation of the additions that you made, you look to be in good shape. There is one sentence that is not cited in your additions, yet the sentence following this sentence, which appears to be related to and to be a continuation of the first sentence, give proper citation.

Sources: The article itself has over one hundred citations, so it is difficult to dive into the validity of each article but from the looks of it, a substantial number of the articles appear to be articles that are published in accredited academic journals. For the references that you added, the sources also appear to be peer reviewed articles from accredited academic journals, which provide solid sources for Wikipedia article.

Completeness: Both in the article itself and in the references that you use appear to be complete and in generally good shape.

4.	Existing Article

New Sections: No new sections were added to this article. New information was added to an existing section. The added information appears to be appropriate for the section it was added to. The information added did not duplicate information from other sections. The paragraph added is of similar length (slightly longer) and is of a similar nature of the other paragraphs in this section, so it’s addition is appropriate.

Re-Organization: No real re-organization has yet occurred in the sandbox, but the mentioned re-organization of a few sections mentioned in the Article section of this review could potentially be rearranged/re-organized.

Gaps: The edits made appear to fill some of the gaps relating to bivalves. The article in general however, has some gaps in sections that could be filled, such as in the Filtering section, which appears to be a little short and lacks an adequate amount of information.

Smaller Additions: Additions are made to a relevant section of the article, yet additions are only made to one section. This is okay, but consider adding some information to other sections if time permits and you find relevant and beneficial points of addition. Biostudent2 (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)