User:Nathan.brenn/Urban agriculture/Mkaddache Peer Review

General info
(nathan.brennan)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Nathan.brenn/Urban agriculture
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Urban agriculture

Lead

 * The lead has been extensively edited with clarifications about its differentiation from mainstream agriculture as well as its utilization in modern social movements. This section does include a clear and concise introductory sentence. I believe that the lead does a good job of hitting the main points in a clear concise manner while offering decent descriptions about what the content of the article is about. Also, I do not believe that any information is missing.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think the added content is relevant because it helps to give more definitions as well as provide clarity, making it easier for those unaware of urban agriculture to have a good idea after reading the page.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Because I do not have access to the bibliography of the new edits and actual citations are not added (besides in text), I cannot determine this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think that the two sentences in the “impact” section about urban and peri urban is unnecessary since it is not truly related to the more in depth analysis of the other subsections as well as providing confusion since UPA is not mentioned elsewhere.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, social injustices are mentioned throughout the article from the nutrition section to health as lower income individuals as well as POC tend to have accessibility issues in regards to local, fresh agricultural opportunities, a considerable equity gap primarily dependent on income.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? I do believe that the content has a neutral tone and follows the proper Wikipedia guidelines for neutral content.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think there could be some more content additions to the certain sections like noise pollution are highly underdeveloped in comparison to others.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?/Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
 * Are the sources current? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
 * Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I do believe that the added content is very concise and clear.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any major errors.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think that the added content is pretty well-organized.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? Overall, I think that the content has greatly improved the article by cleaning up a lot of unnecessary mentionings as well as adding some clarifications, especially in the lead section, for people unaware of the happenings in the world of urban agriculture. Maybe there is room to add more actual additions of text to places other than the lead section as the economy of scale and noise pollution sections could definitely have some more analysis to them.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths in the added edits come from their ability to clarify different areas such as using UA vs UPA which can prevent confusion for the reader trying to learn about a new topic.