User:Emmasandell/MyPlate/Yoshi-dawg Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * The Lead has been updated with new information but it does use some opinionated language like "smartest possible food choice" and the term "best". I am going to edit those out for the user. The part they added to the lead is good but needs a more encyclopedic tone. The Lead does include a clear and concise introduction sentence. The Lead does not contain a breif description of the article's major sections. The Lead is good but could benefit from re-adding the "contents" block where everything is labeled and also should avoid language that inserts an opinion of the topic. The first sentence is very good though.

Content

 * I think the content added to the Guidelines portion of your article contains useful information but also kind of sounds like you are in strong support of the MyPlate plan. You could try and use language that supports a more neutral tone. The content seems not too old but it would be nice to hear if there is any recent reception/updates about it or if they are thinking about changing it again. It looks like the most recent information used is from 2016 but it may be beneficial to see information from within the last couple years.

Tone and Balance

 * I think some of your content uses maybe too many adjectives like "best" or "smartest" which can come off like sounding as an opinion so I would try to avoid language like that. I think the main viewpoints are in support of it so maybe you could bring up some viewpoints that don't like it. But you also did bring up Harvards Healthy Eating alternative which was a really good way to shed light on an alternative to MyPlate.

Sources and References

 * It seems like you have found a lot of good sources on the topic since it is somewhat associated with the government. I checked multiple links and they worked. It seems like you have content that matches up with what your sources present. Most of the sources are from within the past 10 years which is really good, I also think you did a good job in finding a variety of sources.

Organization

 * The content is well written. I could not find spelling error or grammatical mistakes but I am going to make direct edits on it as well and will fix as I go. The sections are broken up well but I might add the "contents" box again to provide more organization.

Overall impressions

 * The content has improved the overall quality of the article and has used good sources while doing so. The content could be improved by maintaining a more encyclopedic tone throughout the article.

~ Yoshi-dawg