User:BryanC194/Sustainable consumption/Tsweeney617 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? (provide username) BryanC194
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:BryanC194/Sustainable consumption

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? somewhat
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? somewhat
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
I think that right now the article is still being drafted so it is a little all over the place. But I can tell that it is still being drafted and it looks like it is going in the right direction.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * 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? no
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? yes

Content evaluation
I don't personally know a lot about this topic but since I don't hear about it a lot I think that it is pretty underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
I think that the overall tone so far seems very unbiased. There are a lot of facts represented from sources so it seems that the information isn't from one standpoint or another.

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? N/A
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are organized in a way that shows you what section they are for which is very helpful to figure out what is relevant to the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes
 * 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 so far

Organization evaluation
The paragraphs are a little bit messy right now but I can tell that the paragraphs are still being put together and each section shows what will be put into it. I think this will be helpful so that information isn't repeated or unclear.

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
N/A

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?
 * 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?

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?

Overall evaluation
I'm not sure the progress on the article but as of right now it seems like it is still in the draft stage.