User talk:Nataliezahrebelny/sandbox

Peer Review
-Good Natural syntax -Credited sources - The only thing that could become a potential problem is that the group wants to add information on things such as Potash or nitrogen leaching and expand on those sections. The only problem is those subjects have their own individual Wikipedia pages, I assume that is why those sections are more underdeveloped - Information on statistics of fertilizers is a great addition with lots of info! JasonCharbonneau (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review on Fertilizers
I chose to edit the "Fertilizer" Wikipedia article that is being edited by Nataliezahrebelny in Carleton Universities ERTH 4303 class after reading her rough draft in her sandbox. Based off the 5 elements that the best Wikipedia articles have the Fertilizer page does have lead section that is easy to understand however it is short for a Wikipedia page that does have multiple sub-topics and lots of information within it. It might be useful to add one-two sentences that are summaries of each sub-topic for the lead section to be a well-rounded representation of the entire page. The structure of the page is well sorted and easy to follow/understand as each sub-topic coincides with the following sub-topic. Balanced coverage could be improved as some sub-topics have more information/details within than others do but this is out of the editors control sometimes as information/details are limited. Content is very neutral and all of the students editions are very well and neutrally written. Finally, all of the sources that the student editor added are peer reviewed reliable sources which completes it to be a well-written article, with all additions being beneficial to the overall quality of the article. Additionally, the editor provided sources/studies done and explained why they were relevant to the article, making it easier to follow. This is something that I did not do when constructing my draft and would be beneficial to those who are editing or trying to follow any changes I have made to the article in the future. Oppositely, I wrote out the actual sentences with sources in my sandbox that I plan to add to the article or the sentences I wanted to change to the pre-existing sentences in the article - this would have been beneficial to see in their rough draft so that I could see the "flow" of the sentences throughout the article. AnnikaET (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I’m doing a peer review for the ERTH 4303 class and the first thing I noticed, based off the five elements that make a good Wikipedia article is that the lead section is small for such a large article, but informative since there are only so many things one could say in an introduction to Fertilizer. The second thing I noticed was that the rough draft was just point forms of what would be changed, I would have liked to see some rough draft fully written out so I could see how the ‘flow’ was going, but their points seem to be great additions to the article. The structure so far looks appropriate and the content looks neutral, with no biases in their information. Finally, their sources look reliable and informative for the topic. SophieL3 (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
When reviewing the draft of changes for the Fertilizer article I noticed a few areas that could use improvements. To begin the draft needs to be more indepth, sentences formulated and ideas expanded. Based on the information given I believe that the areas of the articles that are being edited are the ones that can effectively be added to. For example, other reviews state that the lead section is small; however, to expand on the lead section would most like result in the repetition of what is already written. In this draft, adding sections to "Production - Organic fertilizer" heading is mentioned. The second subheading that is proposed is "improvement of soil" discussing procedures that effect soil quality. I believe that this may be a problematic addition as it may be providing information that would not be considered fertilizer as it fertilizer is considered material not method. Along with this the statement that fertilizer use is increasing despite a decrease in farm land in the U.S. is repeated in both the "Environmental Effects" and the "statistics" sections, this information pertains more to statistics but ensure that this fact has a point when completing you article edits as I do not believe it warrants it's own statement. Within the "Statistics" heading the sentences 'Use of fertilizers are beneficial although they may have some negative environmental effects. The large growing consumption of fertilizers can effect soil, surface water, and groundwater due to dispersion of mineral use.' should be moved to the "Environmental Effects" heading and should not use language such as may. The sources provided are all accessible; however, the first source listed Haynes, R.J, R. Naidu (1998), is 20 years old and would be considered outdated. Keep in mind your draft should be in the format of a wiki article, meaning headings should be present and not just mentioned. Overall a good start but be careful when selecting the language as it uncertainty should not be present since all information should be from facts not speculation. RebeccaWedley (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2018 (UTC)