User:AprilGa91962893/Anti-sweatshop movement/Natasha14738 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? AprilGa91962893
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/University_of_California,_Berkeley/Social_Movements_and_Social_Media_(Spring_2020)&diff=prev&oldid=946080447

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Yes, but it could be longer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes, with a clear definition.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: Yes, with subsections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: It is concise and not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes, there are links from the current year.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: Think there could be a section on 'wins' for each side of the debate.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?: Yes, it talks about historically marginalized and vulnerable individuals.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?: Yes, there are arguments for both sides.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Arguments in favor is not as robust as against.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: Yes, but the effectiveness paragraph could be worded better.
 * 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?: Yes, but add an 'impact' section separately.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?: Yes.
 * Are images well-captioned?: Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?: Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?: There is only one, I would add more, at least one per section.

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?: There is enough to back up the article, but there could definitely be a lot more, there are only 17 sources so far.
 * 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?: Yes, even links other organizations within sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?: Yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: Yes.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?: The history is a lot more beefed up, and the arguments for each side are laid out a lot more nicely.
 * How can the content added be improved?: Add more pictures, and split up the effectiveness section. Discuss policy changes as well as how both sides of the movement have reacted.