User:Careena.El-Khatib/Food security/Krishgopalan 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) Careena.El-Khatib
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Food security

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 could be updated to include information about the case study, as well as provide needed context for the current model. Perhaps the lead could be modified to include information about the current view on the relationship between food insecurity and economic growth? The specifics of the model would be worth explaining. Including the case study in Lisbon as evidence for the model rather than keeping it as the focus of the article might be a good path of action.

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 is good initially, but I found it a bit confusing in terms of what the model actually was.

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
In terms of tone, it does seem to me that the article does seem to sway positively considering the model. Positive adjectives (e.g. "inspiring") are used. Although the model could be successful, I think it could be presented in a more neutral way. I would instead describe the present model in terms of its effectiveness as well as include criticisms that the model has, to present all sides of the issue.

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
There are quite a few places where claims are made without proper citations. It would be helpful to go back through the article and input the citations after each claim, so as to ensure it doesn't get taken off.

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 organization is concise and the content doesn't seem to have any spelling/grammatical errors. I would make the sentences more concise though, so that they are less wordy and contain more information.

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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
Overall, the article is off to a good start. I would definitely watch the tone of the article though, since it does seem to push the audience in one direction. Introducing more viewpoints and describing the model in more detail would be useful, since I didn't really understand the measures described. Adding more detail would be key here. Otherwise, it would be a pretty good addition. Good job so far! :)