User:Henny2shoes/Consumerism/Smithlilly3 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? Henry D
 * 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?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead for the page does describe this section but the section itself has a brief well written lead describing the section. It is clear what the section will be about it could touch on how it will address the impacts that exist today.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is definitely relevant to the topic and is up to date. I think addressing the ways that Black Americans were excluded from credit and loans and the impacts would be helpful as well as the ways that these boycotts contributed to the civil rights movement. This page definitely covers an equity gap that was missing from the original article.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, yes it is very balanced. Someone could try to say that would "mistreatment" is a bias descriptive term but I think it is backed with important evidence that validates its use. The content is information and research based.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
Yes, there are several reliable sources and all the links work. They are from a variety of authors, most are from "A Consumers' Republic" which is a little outdated but gave a lot of very valuable information for this topic.

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?

Organization evaluation
It was well written but hard to read. It needs to be split into multiple paragraphs that separate the topics being addressed and make more approachable. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors. The main change needs to be splitting it up and having nice transitions as the topic shifts. once it is split up I think it will be well written and easy to read.

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?

Evaluation
There is one photo but it does not have a caption. It does specifically say on the link if it follows copyright but it does show that it had a public source. I think it could be a good addition if it had an informative caption to represent how it connects to the text.

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?
 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources?
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material?
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article?
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further?

Evaluation
This section would be very beneficial to original page. It is a relevant factor when analyzing American consumerism and represents an important equity gap. The information added is relayed well and it addresses a variety of impacts. It needs to be split into multiple paragraphs but the information written is good. It has a decent amount of reliable sources and the topic is very relevant to our course material. They provide the historical context to what is being talked about but I think addressing the ways that credit and loan restrictions impacted black interaction in the market would be an important addition to this topic. Adding information from last weeks readings about segmented advertising could also be beneficial.