User:AprilGa91962893/Anti-sweatshop movement/AAnonymous Bear 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?
 * the Anti-sweatshop movement, done by my peer in class: AprilGa91962893
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Anti-sweatshop movement

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 does provide content about the movement. However, the lead does not provide detail on what to expect and does not provide other information about the movement other than the cause.

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?

Content evaluation
The content does cover relevant information about the history of the movement. However, the page does not cover any new information about the movement or a timeline of events that happen to make the movement grow. I also find the content table to not be divided accurately and find it hard to navigate through the page.

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 information that is given I find to be informative and not persuasive. However I do feel that the page is not balanced with old and new information about the movement.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The content of the article only gives eleven sources and only two are linked to read and one of the two goes to a page that is not found, which causes for alarm. This article has not been edited since 2018, that may be why new information is limited and the references are outdated.

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
The page is well written, however the material on the page is disorganized. The page talks about the history and then has a sub-topic underneath it talking about new information that should be a separate category. Other than that the article does not have any grammatical or spelling errors and is broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

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
The page does not have any images, which makes the page dull and uninteresting to a visual person.