User:Henny2shoes/Consumerism/JustinChiu1 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Henny2Shoes
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It starts off by pulling the reader in, it does this by directly saying what the article will be addressing and looking at from the start. letting the reader know what they are in for from the start of the article. Only piece of advice is I would try to make the lead a little more inclusive to the other topics being covered within the article, this would help clarify what is being said.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The content being added is relevant and up to date, while walking the reader through the events without gaps. It has a timeline on it that helps the reader sort of track where they are, and what happens next in order. This is important because in history many people forget which came first, so having it in order is helpful. It also does a good job comparing what it was like for African Americans before and then now, comparing the two, and how far they have come.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The article at times feels opinionated, yes you have a fair point and on that note even one i agree with, but its still important for Wikipedia to have it neutral. In the Wikipedia tutorials it raised a high level of significance within maintaining a neutral and not biased stance throughout the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes they have 6 sources, which meets the requirement of 5 sources minimum to pass. All the sources being used are cited, and linked, easily accessible to be used. One of the sources being used was the material from class, so its reliable and approved too.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Some grammatical errors, and some sentences dont flow properly. Since its a rough draft still its ok to have minor issues, reread out loud during final review to hear the grammatical issues that are in the article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * There is one photo added, with a link provided with it as well showing where its from. I dont see an area within the text that talks about the image being provided, this would be useful so the reader understand what they are looking at, and the significance behind it.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think the greatest strength is also the articles biggest weakness, the article is very informative and educational, walking the reader through the history and how people reacted. On the same note it leads the reader to a specific conclusion, these are supposed to be not biased and neutral. I agree and support many of the topics within the article but with that said i dont want you to lose points because you gave the reader a conclusion. Proof reading might be useful too, some of the sentences dont flow properly with the other sentences, making it confusing at times. In terms of pace I think a lot of key information is useful, but at times it feels too much information at once, a sort of overload of worts. I think once you proof read and add some sentences giving natural breaks within the text, it will flow better as a whole.