User talk:Weiting(Wendy) Li/sandbox

Article Evaluation
Title: Bycatch

This article has irrelevant information that could be shortened in order to actually focus on bycatch. There is no need of going into details about the different species that are being caught through bycatch, they could be simply listed in a summary sentence. Instead, the author should talk more about different fisheries gears and how they are related to bycatch. For example, Gillnet fisheries cause very high incidental mortalities in cetaceans and pinnipeds, that should be included in the article.

The viewpoint is underrepresented with a lot of unnecessary information. For example when in the beginning, an explanation of what bycatch means is already given, the section of the four different ways bycatch are used in fisheries seems repetitive and it does not really increase any knowledge of the reader. Instead, statistics should be added in the article about the average number of bycatch rates of different fishing gears to give the readers a more insightful view of the main problem in fisheries.

Also some of the citations are extremely outdated, science and ecosystem change with time, more recent sources should be used and also some of the citations are missing,it would be better to add them in.

In class, we talk about it more in depth and detailed as wikipedia is open for everyone with or without fisheries or science background. Using terms such as IUCN Red List is fine for us to read, but other reader might not be able to understand. Instead of using IUCN, the author could talk about the species as threatened or endangered or give a short explanation of IUCN. But again, giving too much information about unrelated topic might distract reader attention and they might end up on other pages.Weiting(Wendy) Li (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I think these sound like really good edits to make to the article. The introduction definitely needs to be changed, and I think maybe to lost the species most susceptible to bycatch. Additionally, I think expanding on recreational fishing mortality and bycatch is necessary. More updated information is up there on recreational fishing mortality, and can be added, as well as linking that category to the Recreational Fishing Wikipedia page, as well as linking other relevant pages to the bycatch article. In the mitigation category, it can be split up into mitigation subcategories (TEDs, BRDs) to look better and less clustered. I think the rest of your edits look good. Adding statistics and updating sources will be a great addition to the article. Rclaussen (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)