User talk:Smsalas98/sandbox

Peer Review
The lead section creates a good introduction/background. However, the lead section should also summarize and overview the sections that follow, and I felt like that was missing. In terms of structure, the text flows well and is divided into clear sections (I'm assuming Long Term Effects will be transformed from bullet points into its own paragraph/section). However, I think the Deep Sea section has some parts that are redundant and could be shortened for conciseness and clarity. Overall the content is neutral and presents the information clearly (barring a few places that need editing). One potential problem is that you rely really heavily on the first source, which makes the article somewhat unbalanced. Although the IPCC is a credible source, it would be good to lean less heavily on it and include more viewpoints than that one report. Lastly, a few more links here and there would help, but overall this is a solid draft.

Rory's Peer Review on Ocean Storage
There does not seem to be any bias in the sources that were cited in their article. Additionally, they seemed very scientific and reliable as sources. One minor note, is on the third paragraph of the Deep Sea section, there is a transition word "However" which to me feels like it slants the article a little more biased in favor of that argument. While I know the paragraph does a good job showing both sides of the argument on whether deep sea CO2 injections will be at the detriment of species, perhaps a more neutral transition word would be better.

I think that the structure of the article is strong and in a logical order. The article could be a little more balanced in that most of the article talks about deep sea without bringing up many other points in as great detail. With that said, the article does a good job of capturing both sides of the issue when looking at environmental effects of deep sea ocean sequestration. I think a minor note to look into is that there were several grammar issues and confusing wordings that I noticed when I read through the article. Additionally, I feel some of the sentences could be shortened or broken into separate sentences.

Overall, I think the article did a very good job of clearly presenting both sides of an issue I knew very little about. It educated me with justified scientific reasoning about the concepts that it talks about. The intro paragraph did a good job of setting up the topic that was going to be discussed. This was accompanied by sections that successfully described the topic in further detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roryfrench7 (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by ChambaKikii (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Main ideas of Review: The article seems like an over view of what the deep sea has and effects of CO2 on the deep sea. So if that was the goal then it was successful and relevant! The article could use some edits for neutral writing, see suggestions below.

Viewpoints of oil companies appear underrepresented compared to the perspective of the biology in the deep sea.

The citations do work, however not all the facts are referenced.

The article has info it needs :) no additions necessary.

Specific suggestions to wording:
Section 1: environ impacts

First sentence: ….before and after (what type of injection?) through…

I know what you are talking about but readers may not be aware of what sequestration is for. It might be helpful to specify CO2 solid/liquid injection. Also, is this article going to be its own page? If so it would be good to include links on other articles that would lead viewers to this page. I

Also does dilute dispersion have a link? It seems important in the intro but I don’t see it discussed in the future.

I really like the last sentence of your intro paragraph, it really solidifies your theme and prepares the reader for an interesting subject ahead!

Section 2: Deep Sea

For the part “have evolved with very little disturbance” —Do you mean physical disturbance? Elemental disturbance? Nutrient disturbance? Disturbance of the water itself? It might be useful to specify.

Similarly, the discussion of the deep sea characteristics of habitat and life should be introduced with the similar idea of environmental impacts. Just so the reader sees how the topics are related, perhaps a clear lead in statement would suffice: “Ocean sequestration in deep sea sediments has the potential to impact deep sea life. “ Then the rest of the paragraph immediately ties in to the main topic, and the following paragraph’s first sentence is a perfect segway. Your article is very organized and I feel well written to be an unbiased explanation of potential impacts of CO2 in the deep ocean.

This part of the last paragraph is great, and the only suggestion I have is to reduce a tone of bias. I feel as a reader that those in favor of injection do not think about the consequences of the deep ocean, but maybe it can be written in a way that here are the facts.

“Those in favor of ocean sequestration argue that because of the ocean's size, diluted carbon dioxide injections will not be enough to create an actual impact on ecosystems and that species can evolve to these increased levels of carbon dioxide eventually.[1 However, injection is spatially specific and ecosystems that happen to inhabit the site of injection can suffer immediate consequences. Affected areas will experience acidification, due to the augmented bicarbonate levels, and in turn a decrease in calcium carbonate levels.[1] This will cause sediments and shells of organisms to more quickly dissolve.[1]

Instead of “those in favor” it could be less biased by citing specific oil companies and a comment they have. Ex. Oil company X believes their deep sea plan calls for “minimal environmental damage because of X”. And the following sentence that starts with “However, injection is….” You could say that “scientific research shows that sites of injection are spatial specific….” and “at each site” affected areas will experience acidification…..

I think your last sentence really sums up the situation with CO2 sequestration in a very unbiased manner and is therefore very we’ll written. The last sense of your paragraph “The capacity of deep-sea organisms to acclimate to the injection of carbon dioxide has not been investigated and the hypothesis that they will evolve in time lacks scientific support.[1]”

Section Title suggestion: How pH affects CO2

Last section review: Long term effects Remove “it is vital to understand” and replace with “Long term effects swill continue to be investigated to predict future scenarios of deep sea impacts by CO2” so that the opinion comes from information that already exists rather than appearing to have an environmental standpoint as an author. Similarly for the following sentence you can change “ we must know how” to “ Due to their biology and strong inlufence of ocean pH changed by CO2 all sea organisms will be impacted by change in CO2 levels. Their prolonged effects are least clear by scientists”.

Feel free to ask me any more questions and freely use any part or all of my offered sentences and ideas in your article. No paraphrase required. ChambaKikii (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Note by author
The entire articles can be found here: User:Ariel (Wiki Ed)/sandbox

I will add consequences of other forms of sequestration soon, this was a draft