User:Charisajm/Ethical eating/Gabelayug Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing the work of Charisajm.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charisajm/Ethical_eating?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ethical eating

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Content
All of the content that was added by Charisajm was all relevant to the article. Not only did they talk about the food itself, they went into detail on how food is made, where it comes from, how it grows, and who are the ones working to provide the food that we eat. It seems to me that the content is up to date. Charisajm added a substantial amount of content for the article. I read what the current article looks like on Wikipedia and there wasn't much on each of the sections. My classmate's content gave statistical data and the intricate process of growing our food that informed me a ton and gave me new knowledge. Overall, I think Charisajm makes this topic easy to understand because it is direct.

Tone and Balance
There is more neutrality in the information Charisajm added than the current article. The current article uses many adverbs and adjectives without really going into detail and Charisajm changes this by actually adding the information that supports the said adjectives such as when it talks about "dangerous" working conditions and how workers are "poorly paid." With Charisajm's work, I don't see that they are picking a side as opposed to the current article, they are just giving information out and does not conclude on anything. However, I think it might be helpful to elaborate on what exactly is ethical eating because I feel like there are different perspectives and ethics to this.

Sources and References
All of the sources all seem to be reliable and are very recent, most of them being published in 2021. In some of the resources, there are also some studies that are cited on there which can indicate that this is not just a new study and that this has been researched before. The links are also working and easy to access. There are a good amount of sources and references for this article that Charisajm added, but I do think that the article overall needs to have the resources added to the current one as it says "citation needed."

Organization
The content that Charisajm added is all organized very well and each topic transitions well into another. There isn't any irrelevant information and the sentences are clean and structured.

Overall impressions
I think that the content and information added much needed quality to the article. The strengths of the content added to the article are that they are in great detail and backed by science rather than opinion. Although the content is in good condition, I think that the current article may improve if some of the current sentences were edited or removed.