User:Mkuulei6/Frozen yogurt/MackenzieOliver Peer Review

General info
Mkuulei6
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mkuulei6/Frozen_yogurt?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Frozen yogurt

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 paper?


 * Although the lead is a good length and provides a strong opening for the article, I'd recommend adding a few more specifics! (maybe talking about history?)

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? (yes)

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? (yes, but more could be added)

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article?


 * For the most part it stays on topic, but the mention of the FDA could be either 1) moved to another part of the article or 2) could be elaborated upon following the lead to keep it relevant to the article as a whole

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? (concise)

Content:

Is the content relevant to the topic? (yes)

Is the content added up to date? (yes)

Is there content missing or content that does not belong?


 * I think (like previously mentioned) following up on the information regarding the FDA that was involved in the lead could be beneficial, maybe including it in the production or history section
 * I would potentially add something about accessibility or distribution perhaps? A discussion on where you can find froyo internationally or within the US, states where it is most popular / not accessible, or something along those lines.

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? (no)

Tone and Balance:

Is the content added neutral? (yes)

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? (no)

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)

Sources and References:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * The sources are not directly linked to their reference in the article yet, but all that needs to be done is to click the cite key and attach them!

Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say?


 * It appears to be, but can't be officially confirmed until the citations are directly linked to their place in the article.

Are the sources thorough? (yes)

Are the sources current? (yes)

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? (yes)

Are there better sources available, such as peer reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites?


 * I would suggest looking into nutrition journals or studies done on the benefits (or harms) that froyo has on human health! But other than that, I think the sources are trustworthy and relevant.
 * There's a few blogs (sources 8-10) that could be questionable but I feel like with a topic like this they can still be applicable.

Check a few links - do they work? (yes)

Organization:

Is the content added well written - i.e. is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * Additions are well organized and put in proper sections
 * Struggled to find where additions were, there are a few copy-paste repeats

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? (no, other than a few weird phrasings)

Is the content added well organized, i.e. broken down into sections that reflect major points of the topic? (yes)

Images and Media: N/A

For New Articles Only: N/A

Overall Impressions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article? (yes)

What are the strengths of the content added?


 * I think the history segment is great - I think it brings a new level of information to the article and could be informative for those who are potentially studying the product for research / curiosity rather than just those seeking a definition.

How can the content added be improved?


 * I think linking those citations to the explicit references will tie everything together and make the information seem more trustworthy.
 * I would also just confirm that all the information in the lead is distributed in other places throughout the article (like the FDA section)