User:BryanC194/Sustainable consumption/Henny2shoes 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

• Whose work are you reviewing? (BryanC194)
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BryanC194/Sustainable consumption

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the lead has a intro that desrcibes the topic but the sandbox seems to be going through some work right now.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes they are listed using headings
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I would say it is in the middle due to the fact it is in work right now

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes because it describes sustainable consumption
• Is the content added up-to-date? I would say it is up to date because the latest source used was in 2018
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would say most of the content belongs because it fits the topic
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I wouldn't really say it deals with any of those because this is a known topic.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes because it provides mostly facts from sources
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No the article does a really job presenting facts to provide information.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I didn't find any points overrepresented or underrepresented
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it doesn't

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it is backed up by the sources listed.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are thorough and very detailed
• Are the sources current? Not all sources are current but about 3 of them are from 2017-2018
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes it is widespread throughout the years which makes the article more intriguing to me.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Not not yet because he is still editing but they are listed.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? A little hard to read since there is a lot of editing going on.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Not yet well organized because of the editing.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?No
• Are images well-captioned? Not pictures included
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No pictures are included
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No the article doesn't link to other articles

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article just needs to rearranged in a different structure so it could be easier to read
• What are the strengths of the content added? The facts that are added make the article really strong and straight to the point
• How can the content added be improved? By improving the structure.

Overall evaluation

Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?
 Yes the article provides 5 sources that are very reliable.

Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list?
 No, but the sources listed seem to relate to the article being written

Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 Yes it does because it relates to consumerism

Does your peer add historical context to their article?
 Yes using sources from past dates

Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? That this article explores a section of consumerism I feel is underrepresented.