User:Amb8675/Throw-away society/Smithlilly3 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? Amber S.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Amb8675/Throw-away society

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?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead is very short. It is only two sentences that describe the term. It would be beneficial to write a full lead for the article that describes each section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic but a couple sections could use more information. I think that the second section that is about women's interaction it would relevant to add information about fast fashion and beauty industry which contribute to throw away society and are mostly targeted toward women. The section about backlash could use some more updated information, there has been a big push for sustainable goods in the past few years and it would be a good addition.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is pretty neutral and informational. It does not take any specific stand point on the topic.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There is an appropriate amount of sources but adding a few that are more up to date would be beneficial. The most recent source was our class text that was from 2003. The links all work and they are from reputable sources.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
It is well organized and easy to read. Each section represents an important topic and the topic named is well represented under each section. There were no grammatical or spelling errors that I noticed. Over all well written and lays out the information in a way that is easy to follow.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

Images and media evaluation
There are no added images. Images could be helpful, maybe an old add to represent the shift in society and the push for new goods post war or some female targeted ads.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?


 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?
 * Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list?
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article?
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?

evaluation
I would say that the first section is the strongest and the other two could have some more information added. It is well organized and has reliable sources. Some more recent sources would be beneficial. This topic is very related to our course material and our course text is linked as a source for information. The additions do add historical context but I think adding the changed in backlash over time would be helpful as well as adding the fast fashion and beauty industry to the women's section would give a more well rounded understanding for the reader.