User:Mliodo/Wildfire suppression/Chaplikabob!0 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Mliodo

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Mliodo/Wildfire suppression

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Wildfire suppression#Rehabilitation

Evaluate the drafted changes

• Their Work vs. the original
  • It was a bit difficult to understand what was going on at first. After looking at the original article, I realized the entire section was rewritten. If possible, include the original section you're rewriting and have your version below it and rewrite the headings/ subheadings so its more accessible in the sidebar.
• Citations:
  • Each sentence that is edited and written includes a citation at the very end.
  • Each of the citations are done through the Wikipedia's official method and you can tell by hovering your mouse over the citation number which shows you a preview of the citation.
• Reference List:
  • For every reference you can tell the information, such as actual titles, authors, dates, etc., by looking at the reference list? 
  • The first reference shows a link to Summons but also includes the proper reference.
  • A few of the references in the reference list were repeated. If you want, you can reuse citations by clicking the Cite button and going under Re-use and using the citation again.
• Sources:
  • After clicking through a few of the cited sources, it seems that the sentences do accurately reflect what the cited sources say. They do a good job simplifying and summarizing the contents of the article into a sentence that is relevant to the section.
  • The first two sources seem credible and reliable because they have DOI numbers, multiple references from accredited institutions, written by multiple authors, and published in journals. I could not find anything on the third article, 'Who's interested? The NSW Grain Belt community survey about volunteering with the NSW Rural Fire Service', although it is a journal article.
  • The articles do seem to be good choices for the information being presented in the sentences, although I can't read the third article, 'Who's interested? The NSW Grain Belt community survey about volunteering with the NSW Rural Fire Service', so I can't say anything on that.
  • All of the citations contain authors, publication years, article titles, journal titles in italics, a volume and issue number, and a DOI number, meaning they are academic peer-reviewed sources.
• Environmental Politics:
  • The main focus for the contribution on the first section seems to be purely environmental. Although it was interesting to read, it might be useful to research the regulations and policies that affect the ecosystem changes. The second section touches on how organizations are able to get support from the government and put regulations into place to continue rehabilitation efforts. I would say the second section has a good environmental politics contribution, and both sections and future sections could definitely use some more focus on environmental politics.
• Content:
  • The information that they are adding seems to really fit with the topic of the article that they are working on. It seems well-researched and contributions are well-informed.
  • The information that they are adding seems to also fit in the specific section they are editing. 
• Writing:
  • There are a few grammar and spelling mistakes. For example, in the first section, benefiting should be spelled as benefitting and the effects in the last sentence of the first section should be affects. Overall, both sections were well-written and easy to understand. A few of the sentences could use less hard-to-understand vocabulary, making it clearer for readers, but overall both sections are well-done.  
  • The tone of the two sections are reasonably neutral, according to Wikipedia's rules. I think it may be helpful to avoid using phrases like 'as many might assume' and 'as well as how people decide to tackle there rehabilitation tactics' because it is a bit casual, but double check with the professor because this could be incorrect. The two sections do not seems to persuade the reader of anything.