User:Henny2shoes/Consumerism/Shenglintan 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:
 * User:Henny2shoes/Consumerism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, it shows the updated contents.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, there is a sentences to overall introduce the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes. But the article only have one section now.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, all the lead information is shown in the article
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is not detail enough in my opinion.

Lead evaluation
It is written properly but need more detail

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes it is updated.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, but there is only one parts of content in the article now.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No, the content is presented properly

Content evaluation
Properly written, but only one section of content now in the article

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, it is neutral with the proper references.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No. they are fair.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, it all represented based on the reference.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, I didn't see any side preference.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone is proper and fair.

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, lots of sources is from the book we read this term which is good.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, it is from 2001-2009
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, they are from 6 different sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, it works.

Sources and references evaluation
Sources and references are good but it should have a specific sort to put the reference.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is concise and easy to read. but it only have one sections.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't find any errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The is only one section which I think is not enough.

Organization evaluation
Need more than one section at least one more reference section.

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

yes, there is one photo.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, there is one photo that shows the the African-American to use consumption to make money.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes. the layout is proper.

Images and media evaluation
The images used is good.

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?
 * The article should add more sections for integrity.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The references and the photo is the strengths parts in my opinion.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * add several more sections to better sort the content.

Overall evaluation
good content but need more sections and sorted.