User:Mullerybrux/Freshwater marsh/MitchKrings Peer Review

Review is at the bottom past the grey box!

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Mullerybrux

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mullerybrux/Freshwater marsh#Article Draft
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Freshwater marsh

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead:

I think the lead has a solid start of explaining what freshwater marshes are. However, I think it doesn't seem to touch on some key parts of the article just yet, such as its impacts on soil, animals, or hydrology (comparing what you wrote with the whole article itself). For what you edited specifically, I think it could touch more on some of the redox reactions that occur under the functions and services section or why it's important to try and keep restoration and conservation front and center. It definitely does a good job of explaining where freshwater marshes grow and some of the different materials that make them up, so well done there!

Content:

I think that the content that was added was solid. You cover quite a few new paragraphs which I like and it adds more to the paper (I especially like the statistics you put in to give more quantification to some of the key concepts - like deforestation). I think that with the types of freshwater marshes section could be elaborated upon maybe a little bit more. It's not a bad section by any means, but I feel like I don't really understand what this tells me about the marshes (of course that could be my own ignorance about marshes coming through). Overall, I really like what you wrote!

Tone and Balance:

I don't have too much to say here. I think the tone throughout your edits is consistent and isn't really biased one way or the other, so good job.

Sources and References:

From what I looked over, the sources look good. My only worry is that some of them appeared to be relied on quite heavily at certain points of the article. Namely, sources 2 and 12 in the sandbox (2 and 14 in the actual article itself). All of the Types of freshwater marshes section relies on 2 and an entire paragraph in the functions and services used 12/14 only. I don't know if those sources are the only source of info you found on those particular points (if so, then so be it), but I think giving more sources to those sections would make it seem like you aren't relying too heavily on those specific sources.

Organization:

So I think the changes reflected in your sandbox are better for the state of the article itself with the types of marshes appearing before some of the other information. I think it would make sense to be the first thing that is after the lead. I'm not sure where exactly you were planning on putting it (such as after the vegetation or animals section or the lead), but that would be my thoughts on where it would fit in best. Besides that I think the page flows nicely, but perhaps it would be good to move the functions and services section up with the types of freshwater marshes section. That way, after explaining the types you could go into why we care about them on a broader scale before the rest of the article dives into some of the more specific aspects of their functions (such as vegetation, how it affects animals, etc.). I think it works as is to, but that's just an idea.

Images:

I think the image that was added of the soil is good. Maybe another image could be added to show how freshwater marshes have changed over the years (to help reflect that lost 90% stat you have in that section).

Overall thoughts:

I like it! I think you added in some good information that gives some important quantification about some of the concepts outlined in the original article. I think the lead could be fine-tuned a bit more to reflect what you added in particular and some other aspects of the article (including some information that should have been present in the lead that reflects what the original author wrote). I think reorganizing the article will help it flow better, and I think that the types of freshwater marshes section could be altered a little bit to give it more weight. It kind of feels a little list like right now, but I'm sure you'll make good changes for it.