User:Danqiluo/Marine outfall/Jnewman12 Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• This is a peer review of Danqiluo's article "Marine outfall."
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Marine outfall

Lead

Lead evaluation:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No the Lead has not been updated with my peer's new content.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the Lead's introductory sentence clearly defines and describes the article topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • The Lead briefly describes why marine outfalls are advantageous and includes notable outfall examples. However, it does not touch upon the remaining sections of the article. The Lead could be improved by briefly introducing the remaining sections in the body of the article.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • The first paragraph of the Lead includes information that is sufficiently covered in the body of the article. The second paragraph, however, includes specific examples of marine outfalls that are not all covered in the remainder of the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • I really enjoyed the first paragraph of the Lead and feel it is satisfactory in introducing the topic. However, I think the second paragraph is overly detailed for the Lead and feel most of that information is better suited in the Examples section.

Content

Content evaluation:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, I found the content to be mostly relevant to the topic of marine outfalls. The authors do a nice job of contrasting the advantages and disadvantages of discharging partially treated water into the ocean and some of the controversies surrounding marine outfall installations. Listing examples of notable marine outfalls is especially relevant because it helps the reader identify the multitude of outfall types and scales as well as the arguments against marine outfalls.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • As far as I can tell most of the content is up-to-date. The article was last edited in 2019 and was regularly updated before then. The Lead includes the number of outfalls in Latin America as of 2006, which is probably no longer up-to-date. The Examples section includes outfalls that currently exist, existed, or are proposed. However, since this list does not describe the status of each outfall it is difficult to determine if this list is up-to-date at first glance.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • The Examples section is missing depth and discussion. I think this section could be improved by including the status of each outfall (e.g. proposed, in service, out of service, etc.) and possibly some notable information about each one. The articles states in the Lead that there are at least 200 registered outfalls globally, so it has already been established that outfalls are numerous and found around the world. Therefore, simply listing cities with outfalls and providing no additional information does little to improve the reader's understanding of the topic.

Tone and Balance

Tone and balance evaluation:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • Yes, the content is neutral. The authors present both the advantages and disadvantages of marine outfalls without making any judgement about the technology. The authors did an especially good job of remaining neutral when writing the Controversies section.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • No, the articles doesn't contain any claims biased toward any particular position.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The Advantages and Disadvantages sections rely heavily on a single Australian engineer as their primary reference. I think these sections could be improved by including expertise from a variety of professionals, not just engineers. I am sure marine biologists and ecologists have studied the effects of marine outfalls on ocean ecology and can provide insight on the advantages and disadvantages of the practice.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the article remains neutral and allows readers to come to their own conclusions regarding the practice of marine outfalls.

Sources and References

Sources and references evaluation:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • While my peer has not provided new content to the article, the original article is lacking in sufficient references to back up the information presented. This is my biggest issue with the current article. The lack of proper citations is especially apparent when quantitative or historical information is presented that is not attached to a reference. The Advantages and Disadvantages sections also rely almost exclusively on a thesis from a single engineer. I think the authors could find additional references on pollutant transport in marine environments that could bulk up these two sections.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • I think the sources could be more thorough. Considering marine outfall technology has been around for over 100 years, I am sure there is plenty of peer-reviewed literature and news articles on the effects of marine outfalls that would be relevant to this article.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources range from older to current. The Australian thesis that is the primary reference for the Advantages and Disadvantages section is from 1989. I imagine more current scientific literature has been published on marine outfalls that may be able to confirm or dispute the information from the 1989 thesis.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Roughly half the citations are linked to web pages that no longer exist. The links that still work were mostly those connected to peer-reviewed literature. For those links that no longer work (mainly web pages for organizations), I would recommend the authors find more permanent sources to back up their information. Scientific articles and periodicals are better archived online than websites, which are constantly updated.

Organization

Organization evaluation:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • No content has been added by me peer. However, the content of the existing article is well-written and easy to follow.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • I was unable to identified any major grammatical or spelling errors. One note I have is the inconsistent formatting of geographic place names in the Examples section.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • Yes, the article is well-organized and the sections are comprehensive of the article content. I would consider absorbing Controversies into the Examples section and renaming it "Notable Examples." The specific examples currently found in the Lead could also be moved to this subsection.

Images and Media

Images and media evaluation:

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
  • No images are currently included in the article. Images of different marine outfalls around the world would greatly help the reader visualize the scale and variation of different outfalls. Images could also be included of the grease and sludge accumulation described in the Disadvantages section.
• Are images well-captioned?
  • Not applicable.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
  • Not applicable.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
  • Not applicable.

Overall impressions

Overall evaluation:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • Not applicable.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • Not applicable.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • While my peer has not yet added content to this article, I think they can improve the article by
    1. Including relevant images
    2. Updating broken references and including new references from current sources
    3. Reorganizing Examples section
    4. Bulking up Advantages and Disadvantages sections with more scientific analysis and relevant references