User:Gbeno101uottawa/Marketing ethics/ZachLee888 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gbeno101uottawa


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Gbeno101uottawa/Marketing ethics
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Marketing ethics
 * Marketing ethics

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.)

LEAD

The lead is quite good! It concisely introduces the topic at hand and reflects the new content added by my peer. However, I think that adding a brief description of the article's main sections could make the lead section of this article a bit better. This brief description could work hand-in-hand with the excellent Table of Contents in the article.

CONTENT

Yes, the content added by my peer is relevant to the article on marketing ethics. Their contribution to “meticulous codes of ethics” is a great example of threading the needle on an article that has holes needed filling in. My peer also included a book reference to go along with their contribution, which is always good! The book itself is from 2012 and, might I add, a great choice, but because marketing is a fast-changing field that always needs to be adapted to, I think a more recent reference could be used here. See, for instance, Eagle et al.'s (2020) reference which could add more juice to this article.

Another thing that my peer could add to this article regards social media marketing—which is not covered in this Wikipedia article. Social media is one of the biggest tools marketers use to their advantage, and there is SO much ethics involved in and around social media marketing. One example is the ethical issues around personal/user data privacy. If my peer wanted to go in this direction, they could use the reference from Dahl (2018) listed below.

I would also suggest adding definitions to the practices/techniques mentioned under the “Price Collusion” section. Although there are linked Wikipedia articles, some may not want to go to an external link. That’s just my view, however, others may be fine with the links to other articles.

TONE AND BALANCE

My peer’s contribution is neutral and does not appear to be biased in any way. Thus, I don’t find the contribution (or article in general) to be persuading in any way.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

Please see my comments in “content” relating to sources.

My peer’s content is backed up by a reliable reference from SAGE Publications (i.e., a reliable publisher). The source is thorough and includes chapters written by several different authors (so, there is a diverse spectrum of authors). Again though, 2012 is “recent” enough but I think that a book from 2020 onward could be a better angle because marketing is always evolving.

The link to the reference my peer added does work.

ORGANIZATION

The contribution and content in this article are both easy to read and clear. I don’t see any grammatical errors either. I love the sub-headings and the table of contents in this article too, it helps to organize the article and really helps the reader.

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS

Please see my comments in the “content” section.


 * maybe add a more recent reference to help beef up this article. Although ethics may not change, marketing certainly does. See Eagle et al. (2020).
 * maybe add a section on ethical issues around social media marketing. See Dahl (2018).
 * add definitions to the practices/techniques mentioned under the “Price Collusion” section