User:JKBrenner/Rationing in the United States/Wcubias Peer Review

General info
@JKBrenner
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:JKBrenner/Rationing in the United States
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Rationing in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The information Jackson's adding is already referenced in the leas.

Content

Tone and Balance
 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content provides important context for rationing, and provides more context for the briefly explored WWI, while introducing the 1970s.
 * Is the content added up-to-date ? Yes, as it's history content which is surely to not change.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There seems to be a bit of a knowledge gap for any time period outside of WWII, therefore providing context for the 1970s is very helpful.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article references women's committees, which is underrepresented in the time period of the artivle.
 * Is the content added neutral? I cannot identify any bias, so yes.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: Not necessarily, the main focus of the new context is women's groups, but I wouldn't say they are overrepresented.

Sources and References
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, each claim made is supported by a reference.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? /Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? (*additional question from Professor Heinz*) The sources are thorough for the information being added to the article. But there is not a source from the suggested sources list. I definitely think you could integrate perhaps "The Politics of Consumption" by Meg Jacobs.
 * Are the sources current? Given that the context is hisotrical, i do believe the sources to be current, even if they are over 20 years old in some cases.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized

Organization
 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes it easy to read; I think just going back and reading out loud will help catch any conflicts/errors too. The writing is firm and concise, making it an easy read, and a seamless fit into the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Here's a few that could use fixing: "Wisconsin for example the Council of Defense asked wholesale bakers to sign a pledge guaranteeing they'd keep bread on the shelves for longer durations." I'd definitely place a comma before and after "for example". Another one I would try to fix up: "even-odd rationing systems were created which alternated which day even and odd numbered license plates could get gas." Outside of this, a really solid draft.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content added will fit seamlessly into the article.

Overall impressions
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? There is a more comprehensive page for rationing with the additions to the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added creates a timeline for rationing, and gives context for rationing outside of its peak in WWII, which is widely covered.

Additional Questions
 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? 4 sources.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? It definitely does in that it references numerous women's groups, especcialy in regard to furthering their rights through politics.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes.
 * 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? I would say the article could be improved a bit more, by adding more examples of rationing on s maller scale, eprhaps state by state or city by city.