User:Cearly2/Consumer movement/Marlee Gaddy 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

 * Charlie E
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Consumer movement

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * I do not see the "Tugwell Bill" part in the chart, or intro of "the dissatisfaction" statement. I see the connections of the sources and the information that was found and is to be updated giving a clearer picture of the subject for the reader.
 * The intro statement is very clear, and descriptive, as the article opens with a definition of the "Consumer Movement" which is really helpful and gives a good idea of information for the reader to begin with. It then leads the reader to the "Term" paragraph which gives a more in depth explanation.
 * There is a solid key that gives an outline of the paragraphs and the order of them
 * there are a many outside sources that Charlie found that I was able to find and therefore gather more info. All in which I think are all reliable sources
 * I feel it is concise but I am also wanting more information on the topic. If I were someone to have no idea what the consumer movement I would probably want more to read and learn. I think the article does a good job of being descriptive and informative and gives the reader accurate sources so that the information seeking can go further.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all the sources and historic documents all correlate to the subject. I found a majority that are in the Sandbox to be from books that Charlie E had gathered, and find them to be creditable sources.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? N/A
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Not that I saw, besides one note that was made on the sandbox to delete or rewrite one of the last sentences in the intro

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes, there are facts to support the writing and there is no evidence of bias in the writing. It is more informative versus argumentative.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No it is also more of an informational article that is explaining a concept
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I don't find any clear viewpoints that make it sound really underdeveloped and I want to look back after the article is updated with the changed from the sandbox to double check

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources and citations are listed at the bottom and are reliable as I have been able to see
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, there is extra information also that goes beyond to help explain the concept
 * Are the sources current? I find that they are and some that aren't super new but they are solid sources that I would not delete
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Well, one source is an actual bill that was passed and many others are from books which I find really reliable
 * Check a few links. Do they work? the sandbox are book citations the article ones I clicked on do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? From the sandbox I really like how organized it is because when I click to see the article I can easily find the spots that were pointed out as problematic
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any, but I also have problems on my computer where it does not always notify me when I have mistakes so I will have to double check
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I fid the entire sandbox to be organized in the sort that mine is. I modeled mine like this one and am well informed on what is problematic and what is added or changed.

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?

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? I find it is more complete and there are things that were spotted that I did not find after I read the article before previewing the sandbox so I think collaborating like this is important because I will continue to look and observe and note anything I find problematic
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The sandbox adds information that goes outside the article but brings in information that is necessary for people to know when viewing this concept. The sources added that include outside books and reports is really critical in the understanding of the consumers movement.
 * How can the content added be improved? I think that collaborating more in a sense with a peer can offer new views and new ideas on the article that sometimes the creater does not see or think of.