User:Alex Prieditis/Overconsumption/Tamara Omar Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Alex Prieditis


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Alex Prieditis/sandbox


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added, it includes an introductory sentence that clearly describes the topic. The lead doesn't really summarize the articles major sections, it is hard to tell the lead apart from the other sections since there are no headings or anything. I think you should organize this article a lot better because it is a bit confusing to tell what sections and points you are talking about. The lead right now seems to be very overly detailed, you should add a lead section that is more concise and to the point highlighting the articles major sections. It is hard to distinguish between the original article and the things you added to it. I suggest you make that more clear.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic, I can not tell if it is up to date since there are no references listed at all to be able to see the dates. I think that there is a good and sufficient amount of information, I don't think there is any missing content, it all belongs but it just needs to be organized in a much better way. The article does not deal with any of Wikipedia's equity gaps, it does not address any topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and balance

The content added is neutral, there aren't any heavily biased claims. The content added does not persuade the reader toward any position, the content is factual.

Sources and references

The content is not backed up my any sources. There are numbers in the text suggesting a citation but there aren't any citations linked anywhere and the numbers are just part of the text (not blue and no links). I think you can copy paste if from the original article in a way where that stuff will actually show up properly.

Organization

The content added is well written, clear, and concise. It is easy to read and no major spelling or grammatical errors. The content added is not well organized, it is hard to distinguish it from the content that was already there. You should put headers breaking down the different major topics in the article and have a better flow. Looking at it this way, it seems very unorganized. The information is great it just needs a better flow and organization.

Images and media

No images or media

Overall impressions

The content added improves the overall quality of the article making it more complete with better written information. The strengths of the content added is that the information and facts are good and very relevant to the article it just needs improvement on the flow and organization of the article itself. I think you should have some of the words in the text cited and linked to their definitions because there are a lot of words that the general public won't understand. Overall this article is well written with great information, it just needs work on organization and the addition of sources. You should make sure the in text citations link to sources that should be in the references section on the bottom of the page. In the talk page it is suggested that the footprint section should be elaborated further, I agree with that. Or maybe adding an environmental impacts section would be beneficial. Also something else would be that this draft should be in your sandbox draft rather than just in your sandbox. You can just copy paste it there.

Hope this helps!