User:Lemonsc27/Degrowth/GersonCool Peer Review

General info
-No classmate appears to be assigned to this article.
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Degrowth&action=edit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Degrowth

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:

While the lead does include a description of the topic and is relatively concise, it fails to describe the major sections of the article.

Content:

The "Background" section does a good job in delving into the various aspects and influences related to the Degrowth movement. The information appears to be fairly current, and it does deal with what is arguably one of the largest equity gaps facing society today: the differences between the beneficiaries of capitalism and those negatively impacted by those benefits.

Tone and Balance:

It does seem that the article has a slant towards the Degrowth movement, with a very limited amount of information presented representing an opposing viewpoint. More information needs to be added offering counterpoints to the presented information. Very little criticism is offered in the article, and a good portion of the "Criticism" section is devoted to a critique of difficulties produced by naming the movement "Degrowth." While some arguments are made in the "Criticisms, challenges and dilemmas" section, a more cohesive approach to this section would certainly help validate those arguments. The section is written in a manner which makes comprehension difficult.

Sources and References:

There are certainly a number of different references in this article (154, to be exact). It does appear that some of the links in the article are non-existent and need updating, and quite a few of the references lack hyperlinks to the referenced articles.

Organization:

The article does not appear to read like most Wiki materials I've encountered. The style seems a bit more like a college assignment than an impartial informative treatise. It lacks organization and would greatly benefit from reorganization of the topics in a more orderly manner and a more concise use of language.

Images and Media:

Only one image is included in this article. The included chart appears to abide by Wiki's rules of use, and a direct source reference is included. For the layperson, the chart is almost indecipherable (especially without reading the referenced study) and adds very little to the overall discussion.

Overall Thoughts:

While this is certainly an interesting topic, and if the premise is to be believed, should play a significant part in any "rebalancing" of humanity's impact on our planet, the article is in need of some serious work.

My thoughts:

-could benefit from reorganization

-could benefit from a more concise presentation of several of the facts

-a bit more detail in the lead, with concise introduction of each section of the article, would help the average reader better navigate the material

-the last section ("Healthcare") seems to have been thrown in as an afterthought and, while an important topic, seems to be presented out of context

GersonCool (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

GersonCool