User:Mhogan17/new PeerReview

{| class="wikitable" Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:
 * Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * 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?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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 for 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback
A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.


 * Peer review of "Homemaking"
 * Peer review of this article about a famous painting
 * }

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username) Aamarain


 * Link to draft you're reviewing User:Aamarain/Disposable product
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)Disposable product

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:

The lead section is not applicable for this user because the user focused solely on a subcategory.

Content:


 * 1) The content is relevant to the topic being discussed. The user talks about the many different types of materials from which disposable products are made.
 * 2) The content is up-to-date.
 * 3) The content all makes sense and leaves out nothing.
 * 4) The user adds about recycling rates in Chile which is often underrepresented on the world stage.

Tone & Balance:


 * 1) The content does not sway towards one position.
 * 2) The added content does not side with one particular viewpoint.
 * 3) No viewpoint is either overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * 4) The added content is not persuasive at all.

Sources:


 * 1) The sources all look reliable.
 * 2) The user relays the information mentioned by the sources accurately.
 * 3) The sources are up-to-date and are in-depth in the material of which they speak.
 * 4) The sources are up to 2019, so relatively recent.
 * 5) The sources are written objectively and from many authors.
 * 6) The sources seem adequate for what the user is trying to communicate.
 * 7) The links clicked are functional.

Organization:


 * 1) The content is clear and concise for the most part. I was just confused by the sentence that ended with "they seem to be the least expensive options." Seem kind of seems like an assumption being made so maybe that could be changed to something like landfills are the quickest least expensive monetary way to get rid of laminations.
 * 2) No grammatical or spelling errors were seen.
 * 3) The content added flows well.

Images & Media


 * 1) The image gives a visual of all the different types of products in a landfill to highlight all the different material of which they are made.
 * 2) The caption was to the point.
 * 3) The image adheres to copyright regulation.
 * 4) The image looked well positioned.

For New Articles:

Not applicable because the user is adding to an article.

Overall Impressions:


 * 1) Looking back at the actual article, the user has added a lot of necessary content to enhance the fullness of the article.
 * 2) The strength of this article is its flow as the material presented is arranged logically.
 * 3) If the user just clears up the sentence about the landfill option seeming cheaper then the edits will be ready to be published.