 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Untitled]
editReview of lead section: The lead section is easy to read and understand. I like how other names for sea snot were bolded. The introduction was a little repetitive when discussing how sea snot can spread bacteria and viruses, mentioning this in sentence two and sentence four. This intro does a good job focusing on the the content that will be shared in the rest of the article and piques the reader's interest.
Review of Structure: This article has a great structure. The article starts by sharing the composition of sea snot, then shares the causes of sea snot, and finishes with the various effects of sea snot and countermeasures. This structure is appropriate for helping the reader develop their understanding of sea snot.
In the effects section it could be beneficial to redo the heading structure slightly. The global effects paragraph operates as a lead in and isn't in the same format as the rest of the effect that are more specific (and also still global effects). It could be useful remove the global effects heading and have that paragraph operate as a lead in to the section. In that first paragraph of this section there is discussion of political, economical and environmental issues. It could be useful to either rephrase that or better link health effects, oil spills, and Mediterranean sea to those categories. Neither of those categories have an emphasis on political effects so it could be good to either add in discussion of that or remove it from the first paragraph (if you choose to have that be the lead in paragraph for this section). If you wish to keep three categories, public health, economics, and environment could be better suited to what is currently written. Aspects of the global effects paragraph (like the discussion of lack of clean bath water and smell) could be instead incorporated into the public health section. The economic section could discuss the disruption sea snot causes on fishing and tourism and the cost to clean it up and the environment section could discuss the biohazard to marine life and the marine biome.KimberlyKassis (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Review of Balance of Coverage: This article allots equal space to each idea/topic. The article stays on topic and the content is relevant.
Neutral Content: The article does not take sides and stays neutral when discussing theories. There are some generalizations like "scientist say" but a source is used so readers can determine who those scientist are. While sea snot seems like a bad thing to me, the article does a good job of not emphasizing the negative and instead just shares details about sea snot and it's effects (which happen to be mostly negative) in a neutral way.
Reliable Sources: There are 7 sources for this article which is great! The sources are used well and attached to ideas. In the countermeasure section there is a lack of references and words like "could" without a reference seem to jump to conclusions without a reliable source suggesting this. For these countermeasures it could be good to connect them to the source that presented them so it doesn't seem like they are ideas from the writer.
Two of them
editThere is another page on marine mucilage here: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Marine_mucilage I think either one should be deleted or they should be merged. 82.3.200.164 (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)