User talk:Gabyruelas/New sandbox

Lead Section The lead section of the article is already very pretty well developed; it gives a good summery without being too much information. It included an intro to the field, history/important figures, the science behind bioaccumulation, and touched on legislation. Quick and easy to navigate. Probably do not need to add much to the existing content.

Clear Structure and Balanced Coverage Right now, the main focus of the content seems to be improving the description of the different toxins, their ultimate impacts on the environment and some brief mentions of legislation and regulation. Maybe also consider adding more case studies or recent examples like you did with DDT. Also, with the legislation and policy you introduced, I was a little confused as to what types of toxins they specifically targeted. You're probably going to add them in later, but I think images would heighten the impact of the article as well.

That being said, I do like the content and layout of what you have so far. It flows well and is clear, concise, and information. Once put together with the existing article it will certainly flow well. It is also scientific but not difficult to understand. Nice job!

Neutral Content Your content keeps a pretty good neutral tone. When talking about DDT perhaps you can address the viewpoint of the pesticide industry, pushback, etc.

Reliable Sources Your sources look great...lots of variety and scholarly academic journals. The EPA is a really good reliable source, but maybe add some more info from elsewhere.

Overall, looks really great Gaby!

Rrwolff21 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Gaby's Peer Review

Lead Section I think your lead section is very well developed; it gives a good summery without being too much information. I also like how you included an intro to the field, history/important figures, the science behind bioaccumulation, and touched on legislation. Quick and easy to navigate. Looks really good.

Clear Structure and Balanced Coverage Right now, the main focus of the article seems to be describing different toxins and their ultimate impacts on the environment with some brief mentions of legislation and regulation. Based on your lead section and info in the other sandbox it looks like you are still developing the content to include more about policy and enforcement. I think this would help balance it out a bit more and provide a look beyond the science. Maybe also consider adding more case studies or recent examples in US/World history or even locally. Also, you're probably going to add them in later, but I think more images would heighten the impact of your article.

That being said, I do like the content and layout of what you have so far. It flows well and is clear, concise, and information. It is also scientific but not difficult to understand. Nice job!

Neutral Content Your content keeps a great neutral tone.

Reliable Sources Your sources look great...lots of variety and scholarly academic journals. I also really liked how you added links to societies and other journal articles involved in the field.

Overall, looks really great Gaby! (And sorry for the duplicate posts...not sure how that happened)

Rrwolff21 (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Gaby's response This was super helpful! I didn't consider adding case studies/ recent examples for the section regarding legislation, it's a really good point thank you for helping me out on this! And in terms of the images, yes I will be inputting them. I already found some and need to check that it's not copyright. I will work on further developing the legislation and regulations. I do think it needs more work. Thank you for the feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabyruelas (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)