User:Ghodsonuo/Wildcat strike action/KilianJones13 Peer Review

Peer review
Please find my comments/review directly under they questions they pertain to.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Ghodsonuo
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Wildcat strike action

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, and while I also forgot to update the lead it could survive as it is, least the lead become too USA focused, as most of the info added is about America
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, perhaps something could be added about union laws in the nations mentioned in the article, but this would require a bit more research
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, very much so
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * This is the only sentence I saw that I felt could be regarded as not neutral "are later supported by their respective unions' leadership (who then begin fulfilling their obligation to collectively bargain for their worker-members)." The italicized part (I added the format) in this sentence is technically true, union leaders are supposed to collectively bargain for their members. But they are also supposed to balance this obligation with the employer and this just seemed a little one sided in support of organized labor. I agree with the statement but wonder if it would not sound more balanced if the sentence simply ended with out the content contained in the parenthesis. Just a thought
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Big USA representation but again, thats the section that was added and the whole article isnt expected to be rewritten.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * "The National Labor Relations Act’s Supreme Court confirmation in 1937...." this sentence gave me pause as I didn't quite know what it meant. Did an act get passed then get called into question only to be upheld by the Supreme Court? I think a bit of a explanation about why the NLRA went to the court would be helpful. Perhaps re-linking the NLRA again so people could check themselves? I see you have it linked a few paragraphs above but thats a bit out of the way.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Nothing that stuck out blatantly, but as I'm sure you noticed reading this editing and grammar isn't my forte.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! Very well organized and understandable, also made it easier to find your edits

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, almost made it twice or three times as long and very informative
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Detailed, in depth and well rounded content that provides a much needed addition to a Wikipedia page dedicated to the struggles of organized labor
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * As mentioned above, there feels like small parts which are biased towards labor and against employers, BUT this is a page about labor strikes and actions, so perhaps that is simply how it will read regardless. After all this page is only for one side of the story.

Overall evaluation
Very well written and impressively detailed. I hope my edits appear this well thought out and professional.