User:Karaj623!/Shopping addiction/Doglovers1234 Peer Review

General info
(Karaj623!)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Karaj623!/Shopping addiction - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Shopping addiction - Wikipedia

Lead-
My partner forgot to add their lead to their draft. All they need to do is add what they added to their article and why.

Content-
The content is relevant to the article and the content is up to date. All of the content is relevant to the topic and it should all be added to the article. The content follows all of Wikipedia's quality gaps.

Tone and Balance-
The content that was added is very neutral. The content also does not side with one side or the other of the topic, it just adds more facts so that people can understand the article fully.

Sources and References-
My partner's sources are backed up by a second resource. The sources my partner used are current, thorough, diverse, and reliable. I think the references they chose are great, but there will always be a better source out there.

Organization-
The content is very clear and easy to read because she added two different lists. The only grammatical error is in the first list when she wrote, "regretful after purchased items," instead she could say "regret after purchasing items", to make it make more sense. The content is very well organized though with headers.

Images and Media-
No partner did not add any pictures to the article to make it better.

Overall Impression-
Overall the content is a great addition to the article because it stays on the topic of the article and helps the reader of the article know what signs to look for if they think they have a shopping addiction. The only thing I would change would be the grammatical errors mentioned in the beginning of the peer review and maybe instead of a list write a little paragraph about the symptoms/ signs of shopping addiction.