User:Cearly2/Consumer movement/Amb8675 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? Cearly2
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cearly2/Consumer movement

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
There isn't anything of the lead in the draft, presumably because it seems pretty clear that you are focusing on a specific section of the article rather than the article as a whole. But, I went to the main article and didn't see anything glaringly wrong with the lead of the article. It seemed fine.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
I think the information added is definitely good! it is very focused into the second consumer movement, which is good info. But, it does also feel like a lot of info within one category of "Second consumer movement" I would look into potentially breaking it up a bit more into more sections/sub sections e.g. the role women had in it, national organizations, grassroots orgs, etc. The content all sems up to date and of relevance. It just seems like a lot for one section and like you could easily make more sections, and by extension, elaborate more into the sub-sections.

On the original article, it seems pretty good. Definitely could use more expansion in certain areas, it discusses Africa, India, and a bit on the US so, I feel like it could use more content from other countries, too. But, it would address topics to historically underrepresented populations because often times countries/continents outside of the western world are overlooked when talked about things, and the main article is talking about non-western locations.

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
The balance here on both Charlie's edits and the main article seem fine overall. I did not notice anything that screamed bias to me! I think there was a good balance that was found here.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
It looks like there is a TON of sources in this section (which, unless I'm mistaken, you added in the vast majority of this section?) They all look like pretty good sources, but when I look down in the references, some of them are repeated several times in inconsistent ways. You have "A Consumer's Republic" referenced several times for different page numbers, which that's fine as far as I know, but you also have just "A consumer's republic" without the author/date listed on any of them except one of them for page 33 appears to have the full information on the book. For the Consumer Movement there is varying levels of length. You also have "Buying Power: A History of Consumer Activism in America. pp. 205–207." listed like that twice for references 11 and 12. There is also an in text parenthetical citation too "It was comprised mainly of middle and upper class urban women of high social standings (Sorenson 127)."

I'm not entirely sure how wiki likes their sources to be added and while it is clear why you have these all listed as different sources for different pages, it feels a bit chaotic looking at them and it was a bit hard to keep track of all of the sources with how they were listed out. Again, I'm not sure if this is actually an issue though or just something my brain struggled to read through.

The actual sources themselves though seem totally good!

The original article reference section is also a bit odd seeming, there is full on quotes in it?? maybe they should be there but it seems a bit weird.

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
I touched on this earlier, it feels like a lot for a singular section. But, other than that it isn't poorly organized. It flows decently well, it just feels like it could be divided more which may help readers to find information they are looking for (I mean, i guess I don't know for certain, but I know I like to have things very clearly labeled and in specific sections). As well as what I mentioned in the sources and references section prior to this. Evidently I have a lot of opinions about organizing and formatting things.

I did not notice spelling mistakes or anything of that sort though.

and also linking pages within your sections (where when you hover over a word it pops up with the main article for that phrase) would be useful!!

The original article is also not the best organizationally, it feels a bit chaotic overall.

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 no media added

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 I think you've done a fantastic job!! You have clearly added a lot of valuable and good information into this article. Your sources are good and the information is awesome. You added in so much information about the history of the consumer movements in the United States. My main gripe is just to look a bit more at how you have things organized and formatted because that felt like your biggest opportunity in reading through this!!

The original article is good, too! it definitely felt incomplete though.

Added Questions

 * Do you thoughtfully respond to the evaluation questions with at least a short statement? I do!! except the ones that legit weren't applicable.
 * Did you review the original article in addition to your peer's sandbox draft? yes, briefly, on all the questions I answered.
 * Do you respectfully push them toward growth and point out strengths? I think I did! I tried to
 * Have you accurately identified any major issues? I didn't really notice any major major issues with the content, but I looked for them.
 * Do you answer these questions in the "overall evaluation" section?
 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? Yuppp, I think there is 7 exactly
 * Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? Yes, the Cohen book.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Yes, the fact it is talking about consumer movements makes it directly related to this class
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? He definitely does! lots of it.
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? I think something you could add in to this that would also be good is discussing the effects that the boycotts and protests had, cause you say the events that happened but not the outcome of those event. For me, that is information I would like to have if I was reading through this article.