User:Ariellemei/Pesticides vs the Meat Industry/Sl6268 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ariellemei


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Ariellemei/Pesticides vs the Meat Industry
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)- This is a new article.

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review by: Si-Hyun (Sean) Lee

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?- Yes, the lead is included in the introduction and it has new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?- Yes, the introductory sentence is present: "Urban agriculture in modern times usually rely on heavy use of pesticides". It is concise, but I would be careful about using adjectives like "heavy" because it can be vague and it may sound a little biased.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?- Yes, the author mentions it briefly here: "Herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and rodenticides have been developed over time to target specific pests and offer protection from organisms that carry diseases such as mosquitoes".
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?- So far, this is a little bit hard to judge because the article is not complete yet.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is relatively concise, but I suggest breaking up some parts into separate sentences. For some parts, instead of using semi-colons, I think it would be find to just put a period instead. For example, here: "Pesticide poisoning in non-target organisms such as farm animals, wild animals, and humans is common due to the widespread use of pesticides; the chemicals often are accidentally consumed by non-target organisms or leak and contaminate rivers". (Use a period after "... widespread use of pesticides".)

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?- The content added is relevant to the topic because it discusses the animals which I assume are part of the meat industry, and the author also talks extensively about the types of pesticides.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- Yes, from the sources I see in the references, the content focuses on information in the last decade.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- I think that the author is still looking for more content to add, so this section is hard to say.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- Pesticide usage and its effects are more prevalent for the underrepresented communities, so the article may deal with these topics later on.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?- Yes, the content is mostly neutral but I would be careful about using words like "harsh chemicals..." and "very toxic..." because although it is true that pesticides are harmful, these words may detract from the neutrality of the article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?- No, there were not.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- There are no viewpoints discussed in the article yet because the author focuses on the scientific details of pesticides (such as cause and effects).
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- As said above, no, it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?- Yes, it is. I liked how the author kept updating the references section and used the citation tool to link to the sources whenever she referenced her sources.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)- Yes, the author did a very good job of using Wikipedia's "cite" tool to reference the sources she used directly on her article. I checked the sources and the content indeed discussed what the cited sources said.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- The sources are definitely thorough. I looked at the first source from ScienceDirect and it was very organized with subsection that discussed about the pesticides in specific locations (such as dirt and dust particles).
 * Are the sources current?- Yes, the author has sources from 2019 and 2020 which is very recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- I would say yes judging by their names only but not much else to be said about this.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- Yes they work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- The content is concise but the introduction is slightly hard to read. There are some run-on sentences and as a reader, those parts are a bit hard to keep track of. However, I liked how the author discussed briefly about the about the history of pesticides: " It wasn't until the 19th and 20th centuries that synthetic organic chemistry was used...". I see this a lot in many detailed Wikipedia articles and it shows that the author did a lot of research.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?- There are no noticeable grammatical or spelling errors but again, I would suggest breaking up certain parts into many sentences. Eg: "Pesticides by definition are substances that repel pests; they have been divided into several subclasses depending on the target organism: insecticides to repel or kill insects, herbicides to kill weeds, fungicides to kill mold/fungi, and rodenticides to repel rodents". I do not think that a semi colon is necessary here.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?- Yes, the content is well-organized. Again, I like how the author is planning to discuss the different types of pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, fungicides) and I think that this is a really good start.

Images and Media
Note: No images or media added yet.

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?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?- I would suggest that the author uses the link feature that is next to the "cite" button. This is a feature that allows the author to link other Wikipedia articles about certain keywords.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? This is a new article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? -I think that the idea of separating "Introduction" and "Pesticides: Overview" is very good in terms of organization. I like how the introduction discusses briefly about the interactions between the pesticides and the meat industry to give the audience an idea of what the article will be about. Other strengths are discussed above too.
 * How can the content added be improved?- I think that the author is at a good start. I suggest adding a section that discusses people and the government's responses because I assume that meat industries heavily coordinate with the government and are influenced by the consumers too. I just want to remind the author to keep updating the references section and to continue utilizing the cite tool when editing the article. Lastly, since the author's sources are from scientific journals, including some charts may make the article more visually appealing too.

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting