User talk:Kk0061/sandbox

Peer Review
I like the topics you chose to cover, it makes the page comprehensive but not excessive. I knew nothing about tuna penning and I now feel like I have a grasp without it being too technical. I would suggest having an intro above all of your sections... Maybe you could put it together like we did for the abstracts of our Lit Reviews? That way somebody who doesn't want to read the whole page can have a few sentence overview. Overall, great article!!

Language
You did a great job keeping a neutral point of view, even when discussing the controversy part. I know from our in class discussions that you aren't a fan of the penning but I would not be able to guess that from reading your article. You also did well at breaking down complex ocean processes into a readable style for non-experts. I would consider renaming the future trends section to something like 'mitagation approaches' because aside from the first sentence the section is about offshore auqaculture not a trend. That is very picky but just something to think about :)

Self-Contianment
I think you did great in this arena! The outside information provided is just enough to give context and make your article stand on its own, but not so much that it steps on the toes of other topic areas or articles.

Links and Citations
The article has links in all of the places where I can find that they would be necessary. My only tip would be to put the link to the 'oligtrophic' page no the first time the word appears (just the sentence before you have the link). I just didn't know the word and almost went to google it before I saw the link in the next sentence. The citations are placed well and done properly as far as I can tell. AmsNU2015 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)