User:HannahLH/Appropriate technology/Sanchezpl Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

HannahLH


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Appropriate technology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The Lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added. However, none of the other broad applications are listed in the lead.


 * The Lead included an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * The Lead included information that would be better suited for the body of the article. The Lead can be more brief to include the main sections.
 * The Lead doesn't include information that is not present in the article. However, the last two paragraphs can be condensed and the more detailed information can be moved to the body.
 * The Lead is overly detailed.

Content


 * The content added is relevant to the topic. In fact, the original article needed more information and research under "Agriculture"
 * The content added is less than 10 years old. Is there more updated research on the topic?
 * Content is appropriate. However, some statements need citing.
 * The article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. It also addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance


 * The content added is mostly neutral. As someone pointed out, last sentence on second paragraph under Agriculture sounds like a personal opinion.
 * There are no claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position.
 * The majority of the sources come from the same authors. This shrinks the possibility of other viewpoints and overrepresent the current ones.
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in one way or another.

Sources and References


 * The content is backed up by reliable secondary sources of information.
 * The content reflects what the sources say.
 * Sources are not thorough. There's only a couple and they may not reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Sources are between 8-9 years old.
 * The sources are not written by a diverse spectrum of authors. They do include marginalized individuals when possible.
 * There are other sources available. You can go to Google Scholar and search for "Agriculture in appropriate technology."
 * There are no links but the sources can be searches.

Organization


 * The content added is concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * The content added does not have any grammatical or spelling errors.
 * The content added is well-organized into sections that reflect the main points.

Images and Media


 * The article does not include images.

Overall Impression


 * The content added improves the overall quality of the main article; It adds supplemental information for the Agriculture section, which was lacking detail and research. On the other hand, the content added is limited in the amount of sources provided.