User talk:OctopusLoveHats

Welcome!
Hello, OctopusLoveHats, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:46, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi OctopusLoveHats! This is my peer review for your Environmental Issues with Salmon sandbox. This is a really interesting article so far about a super important topic! Here are some suggestions I have for further improving it:

Throughout the article more citations are needed. It looks like there are plenty of sources in the reference section, but not every sentence is cited.

To improve the organization of this article, I would suggest taking a close look at all of the section headings to make sure they are an accurate summary of the content of the section. In particular, the opening section seems to be more of a summary of the state and geography of salmon fisheries, than it is about environmental problems with salmon, as the heading suggests.

Revisiting the Fisheries section could also improve the organization of this article. The text immediately under the larger heading appears to be repetitive with the text under the gill-net subheading. Perhaps these paragraphs could be combined to ensure the article does not repeat itself. To me, it seems like this section would be more appropriate entirely under the gill-net subheading, rather than under the more broad, larger heading for the fisheries section.

I also think there are some places in this article where more balanced coverage could be possible. In particular, in the environmental pressures section, some factors are elaborated on much more than others. I don't know too much about this subject, but from what I do know it seems that some of the variables that have received very little coverage are rather important, for example overfishing.

I would also suggest doing a close read of the article to ensure neutral and unbiased tone is maintained throughout. One spot where I noticed this could be improved is where it says unfortunately for a researcher, as this seems to assume the researchers personal opinions on the subject.

Lastly, there are some places in the article where some grammatical improvements are needed. Particularly in the climate change section, sentence structure is frequently erroneous or confusing such that it can be difficult to keep track of the point. Throughout the paper, there are minor punctuation errors that should be fixed.

The article looks great so far, can't wait to see it when it's done! Lex T-Rex (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)