User:Marlee Gaddy/Economic globalization/BryanC194 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? (provide username) Marlee Gaddy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Marlee Gaddy/Economic globalization

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Provides a clear and coherent template for edits and contributions.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The sandbox itself does not. But the article does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but could expand upon their contributions. Maybe focus more on the historical aspect of economic globalization. For example, economic globalization's evolution throughout the 20th-21st centuries.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise. Nothing seems forced.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Everything is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Provides two sources that are within the past five years, while one is from 2004. Should replace the 2004 source with another from the timespan of 2016 and ownward. Should also include two more sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Very concise and coherent
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes but, the paragraph that's going to be added onto the introduction requires a restructure. More specifically, the first sentence of the paragraph, it reads more like an essay rather than a wiki article. For example, "In order to understand economic globalization you have to look...". "you have to" comes across as more of a direction/persuasion rather than a neutrally based introduction.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Other than the introduction paragraph, everything else is perfect.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, content is neutrally based.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, everything seems reliable.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. But could be expanded upon.
 * Are the sources current? As stated before, there are two sources that are within the past five years, while one is from 2004. Should replace the 2004 source with another from the timespan of 2016 and ownward. Should also include two more sources.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Well written and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nothing that was apparent. Good grammar.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. Though can expanded upon topics.

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?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Overall, the quality of everything added was great. But could expand upon certain areas of the article. Such as: global actors and history of Economic globalization.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Strengths are that the content was concise, well structured, and grammar was great.
 * How can the content added be improved? Consider adding more content. Other than that everything was good.

Overall evaluation

 * Is a least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? None were not apparent.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Topic relates to course material by expanding upon the international influences of consumption. Such as the economic development of international markets. How globalizing practices have transformed economic development of domestic and international production/consumption
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? Not directly, but discusses historical influences throughout their contribution.
 * 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? Could discuss the economic policies of neoliberalism and their relationship to historical consumer expectations. Maybe reference some of the articles we discussed in Geo 410. Perhaps week 2-3 slides. There you'll find direct links, citations, and quotation related to the topic.