User:JJAtSchool/Hoarding (economics)/TenCatsInATrenchcoat Peer Review

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. The words are well defined and all the concepts described are linked, which is really helpful. The structure makes sense, and the subheadings cover everything I can think of that could be in this article to help understand the concept.

The phrasing of the section on artificial scarcity confused me a little. It starts with "The term "hoarding" may include", except the article is specifically about economic hoarding, not hoarding generally, and the section is about a term which can fall into the category of economic hoarding. Switching "hoarding" to "economic hoarding" could help, or, flipping the sentence so that it starts with what the section is about, like "Artificial scarcity can be one effect of economic hoarding" or something. Still, the section is clear and includes relevant information to the article.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The article is for the most part objective and neutral. It presents multiple reasons for economic hoarding, including motivations/circumstances where it happens. There are some sections where the phrasing makes it sound like an argument, but adding a citation and starting the sentence with a source for the claim would resolve the issue.

Like with "A common intention of economic hoarding is to drive the price of a product up". This isn't necessarily an opinion, but there's no clarification on how the knowledge of people's motivations are known. If there's a study/theory/source this could be attributed to, it would work. Even if the claim about what motivates economic hoarding is from a biased source, depending on context, you could explain the bias and present it as one theory on the cause of hoarding, which is relevant background information for the article.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No, it's all pretty even. More sources for the example section or non technical aspects could make the article more broadly representative.

'''Check the citations: Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

The link to source 1 works, source 2 doesn't.


 * Source 1 is definitely reliable, and neutral: It's a double blind peer reviewed journal that's meant to be accessible to non academic readers as well as economists. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jacr/publication-ethics

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

The concepts in the article are generally supported, there's areas with multiple facts that could use more sources. Some claims that could use sources immediately after:


 * "Hoarding behavior is a common response"
 * "There is often an implication that hoarding occurs because"
 * "Subsequently, the product or commodity becomes scarce, causing the value of the product to rise." The last one is because the introduction has a source, but it looks like the source is for the definition of economic hoarding. The following sentences go into what the effects and process of economic hoarding are, which becomes a different claim.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

Source 1 is great, and I'm not sure how fast the field of economics changes. 1975 isn't necessarily out of date, but including another source, even from a more recent edition of the same journal, might be a good idea. Not for the definitions and stuff, but for the social implications section, because of how much different social groups buying power has changed since the 70s.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

JJAtSchool


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Hoarding (economics)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hoarding (economics)

I'm confused because I found this through the class page and assigned it to myself to review, but now I can't find JJ's draft. I might have done something wrong.