User talk:KyleeGraham20/sandbox

The content is relevant to the article, talking about nitrogen vulnerable zones and its relation to agriculture, but there are some gaps that I found terribly distracting. I found that the ideas did not flow well, and it was difficult to follow along as reader and future editor. I do not think the information is out of date as the page was last edited in 2018 and the resource this page pulled from was dated in 2016. There were some terms that I was unfamiliar with and to improve this part I would reference other Wikipedia articles for relevance. A lot of context was missing and made understanding what NVZs are. Scientific information is presented clearly, however the article needs more supportive sources. The article does indeed link to other Wikipedia articles on related topics KyleeGraham20 (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC).

Kevin's Peer Review
Lead Section:

Right of the bat, the lead sentence provides a clear and concise definition of what a Nitrate Vulnerable Zone is. Personally, I had no idea of what an NVZ is, so I have a clear understanding and introduction to the topic before going more into the article. Looking at the entirety of the lead section, it states the definition, causes, and origin providing a detailed, but quick, explanation and answers multiple questions a reader might have. After reading the whole article, I can say that the "Causes" section of your article is repeated within your lead section. Examples include, "One of the primary causes of nitrate pollution is the use of nitrogen fertilizers[1]." and "Nitrate is released when the soil is disrupted by ploughing and when leaching occurs." You already stated these kinds of points in your lead section: " A nitrate vulnerable zone can be designated as a response to an increase in nitrate leaching or increased use of nitrate-rich fertilizers in a given area." Maybe you should think about taking the section out that speaks about "nitrate-rich fertilizers" and "leaching." Maybe talk more about how plouging affects the creation of NVZ's. The article as a whole is well represented by the lead section. I think, potentially, that you referenced the exceeding "exceeding 50 mg NO3-/L" twice too many times in the article? Seems a little redundant. However, I do understand how you wanted to piece the information together. I am pretty indifferent.

Clear Structure:

I think I enjoy your section-section structure mostly about your article. Through the progression of your lead section, you list out the sections in chronological order. These sections are well voiced and clear with what the topic is about. I enjoyed reading a great, fluid section-section structure. I think your article structure in a sensible order and well progressed. I do not think any changes need to be made at this point.

Balanced Structure:

After reviewing the available literature, I think your "Causes" section could be expanded further. For example, in the Osborn and Cook study, they evaluate how saturated and unsaturated zones can affect the formation of NVZ. This is just one example, but I think you could really expand this section to give the reader more information on how certain things can affect NVZ formation. No sections of your article are off-topic and unnecessary in my opinion. They all go together with the main discussion points of NVZs. Also, with Arauzo literature, maybe you could expand the "Effects" section of your article. Yes, health and saying how the water can be affected by NVZs, but maybe talk about how exactly the water table, groundwater, and precipitation is affected? What are the environmental impacts? These might be the kind of viewpoints you're missing. Other than that, the information you've provided doesn't push me one way or another. Science is science.

Neutral Content:

This may be the best part of your article as a whole. I did not see any type of phrases or words that make any part of the article not neutral. You provide science and facts throughout the article, so there could only "potentially" be a discussion about what's true or not. Great job on this!

Reliable Sources:

I think all of the sources you used are appropriate and well incorporated. However, I notice you used information from the provided literature from Osborn the most. I spoke earlier about potential things you can include from other articles that would help to balance out your source information to provide more developed viewpoints. After studying through the article and sources provided, I do not see a section that should be cited. Overall, great job on this section. I look forward to seeing how your Final Article looks!

Kevpinder (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Response to Kevin's Peer Review: Thank you so much for your feedback and input! I have found it difficult to incorporate more cause and effects into the article as it crosses into potential studies that are not concrete. However, I do appreciate what you are saying and how more readers could delve deeper into the article and find more specific information if they felt the need to. KyleeGraham20 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)