User talk:Kitty56877/sandbox

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Kitty56877 Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kitty56877/sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes and No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise and information added was not explained in the original article.

Lead evaluation The article was started off with statistical factual evidence that supports the main idea of economic expenses within shark tourism.

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes Is the content added up-to-date? Yes Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation Based on my evaluation, I've found that in this article there are statistical facts being used to prove or get a point across and show the number of expenses used on shark tourism and the endangerment toward sharks in general.

Tone and Balance The tone and balance was going smooth and had a flow.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?Yes

Sources and References 1.) Anderson, Douglas J., et al. “Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Nature-Based Tourism

Interactions with Whale Sharks (Rhincodon Typus) at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia.” Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 148, July 2014, pp. 109–119. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.ecss.2014.05.023.

2.) Cagua, Edgar Fernando, et al. “Whale Shark Economics: A Valuation of Wildlife Tourism in

South Ari Atoll, Maldives.” PEERJ, vol. 2. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.7717/peerj.515. Accessed 10 Oct.

3.) Nazimi, Leila, et al. “Comparison of Industry-Based Data to

Monitor White Shark Cage-Dive Tourism.” Tourism Management, vol. 66, June 2018,

pp. 263–273. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.002.

4.) Richards, Kirsty, et al. “Sharks and People: Insight into the Global Practices of Tourism

Operators and Their Attitudes to Shark Behaviour.” Marine

Pollution Bulletin, vol. 91, no. 1, Feb. 2015, pp. 200–210. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.12.004.

5.) Techera, Erika J., and Natalie Klein. “The Role of Law in Shark-Based Eco-Tourism: Lessons

from Australia.” Marine Policy, vol. 39, May 2013, pp. 21–28. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2012.10.003.

6.) http://univ-cotedazur.fr/en/idex/formations-idex/marres/immersion_projects/immersion-projects-catalogue/staff/rationalize-whale-shark-tourism-for-a-better-protection-and-a-sustainable-activity-for-the-local-communities-in-the-philippines

^image source article

7.)David Rowat, Udo Engelhardt,

Seychelles: A case study of community involvement in the development of whale shark ecotourism and its socio-economic impact,

Fisheries Research,

Volume 84, Issue 1,

2007,

Pages 109-113,

ISSN 0165-7836,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2006.11.018.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783606004073)

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes and No Check a few links. Do they work? yes Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes What are the strengths of the content added? The facts and statistics How can the content added be improved? Its good content Overall evaluation