User talk:Chelsei.L/Oyster reef restoration

Peer Review

I read your article and left my peer review on your main article.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Chelsei.L, Eco144, KMorales34

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chelsei.L/Oyster_reef_restoration?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_templateLink to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Oyster reef restoration

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?yes, added detail on substrate used. There could be more added to reflect updates to the ecosystem edits
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes, in so far as the substate detail
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? yes, the article used already has a detailed major sections
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is slightly over precise about the substrate used " Porcelain, concrete, various fossilized shells, and limestone"

Content[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes, it is extremely relevant to the topic
• Is the content added up-to-date? yes the sources are from the last 10 years or newer.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? of-course more details will always be needed but so far there is a clear
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? there may be a section added to determine if the restoration projects are also being done in historically underrepresented and economically challenged areas.

Tone and Balance[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? yes, it is not a controversial topic to begin with.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? there is a bias toward the positive impacts of restoring the oyster reefs but this does not seem to be controversial.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? it does seem like there is an America - euro-centric approach to how the restoration should be accomplished.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? yes, it is persuasive toward restoring the oyster reefs

Sources and References[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? yes, most if not all the sources are scholarly articles.
• 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? yes scholarly articles are peer reviewed
• Are the sources current? yes, all the sources are from the last 10 years
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? it is hard to know unless suppositions are made based on names alone.
• 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.) peer revies is consided good
• Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, but there is room to improve to such ass less detail in the lead and adding information about ares that are historically under represented and less euro/ America -centric.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no, the spelling is correct.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes, this has been done well

Overall impressions[edit]

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? the edits have improved the article greatly
• What are the strengths of the content added? that most of the added content is peer reviewed.

Billybee132 (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Response to peer review

Thank you for providing my group and I with great feedback. We will take into account that you wanted us to include information about historically under represented and economically challenged areas. We think that this will strengthen our article content. We are a bit confused as to how to make our article seem less biased because you mentioned that there is an emphasis on the positive impacts of oyster restoration. We want to bring to light how restoring oysters is beneficial but also have a neutral tone throughout our article. It was very useful the advice you gave back to us, we appreciate it!!! Chelsei.L (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)