User:Booglgoogle1/Food biodiversity/Brabblegreyhound03 Peer Review

General info
Booglgoogle1
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Booglgoogle1/Food biodiversity
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Food biodiversity

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, although this could be a work in progress.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes but it’s very brief. Might be a good thing to expand as as ycontinue to edit.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes; diet culture by Brandon Eisler? Might be something to look into. It does not seem like relevant information to the article.,


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise lead section.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes


 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes!


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Just to reiterate, the diet culture sentence from lead section does not seem to belong.
 * Traits section kind of seems unfinished? Not sure how it fits into section as is
 * Sentence about heirloom rice could be reworked ( Start with “for example...”)
 * EX "Food biodiversity provides necessary nutrients for quality diets and is an essential part of local food systems, cultures and food security.. “Promoting diversity of foods and species consumed in human diets in particular has potential co-benefits for sustainable food systems."
 * This thought from the lead could be expanded on in the below sections, this sentence in particular also needs to be investigated and revised grammatically.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Considers people who are at risk of hunger due to no diversity in food populations. Could these unrepresented populations/topics be expanded on?

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Possibly the Irish Potato Famine. I think you could get away with less explanation as to what it is as its article is linked and most people have heard of or learned about it at some point.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Pretty well written, some added information needs to be expanded on as it seems to have stopped short of the point


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Lots of grammatical errors in some sections, missing connecting words in sentences, some sentences don’t really make sense
 * Ex: “These advantages could immunity to diseases, tolerance to drought, heat, cold or salinity, flavor enhancement, and superior growth traits.”


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The entire new section of “ecosystem services” does not have a single reference in it.  Similarly, there is only one reference at the end of the “Role of biodiversity in production systems” section. Make sure to fix these, and any other places without sufficient references, before publishing.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Checked several sources and content matches up.


 * 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?
 * Yes.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Sources look good!

Overall Impressions


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I believe the added content has strengthened the article overall


 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Gives more information for the services that food biodiversity can provide,


 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Check for grammatical errors
 * make sure to finish thoughts within the article, some sentences have missing words and will likely need to be added to or rewritten to make sense (This is present in almost all sections)
 * Make sure to cite information
 * Green revolution and Columbian exchange?
 * Lots of places where references are either entirely absent or there are very few considering what is being claimed.