User:Puffles cafe/Consumerism/The Renaissance Explorer Peer Review

General info
(Puffles cafe)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Puffles%20cafe/Consumerism?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Consumerism

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 peer?

The lead has not been changed but I believe the actual lead from the article needs to be shortened into one paragraph as a small introduction and then the rest can be its own section that explains the "about" of the topic.

It should be shortened to only this "Consumerism is a social and economic order in which the goals of many individuals include the acquisition of goods and services beyond those that are necessary for survival or for traditional displays of status."


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Not at all (Also not the fault of my peer, the actual article is very long)

Content
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Mostly all there
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Kind of explains the meaning of the word consumerism but other than that not really. It goes into minimal detail


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes the content is relevant to the topic. Most of the stuff added by my peer are unbiased paraphrases from the article itself.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? since the article is history based, some of the content is "out-dated" technically since history doesn't change
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The actual article has many parts that do not belong thus my peer deleting many of the biased/unfactual information.

Tone and Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes absolutely. It's even paraphrased and rewritten many times it seems.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I haven't come across any thus far.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The actual article is somewhat biased in some parts thus my peer removing them as well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? All neutral from what I've seen.

Sources and References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes all the new and paraphrased content has been backed up by reliable/credible sources (mostly journal's from google scholar and worldcat)
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? Yes everything is clearly stated in the sources. I did not see many quotes, mostly paraphrasing.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes absolutely
 * Are the sources current? No the sources are not current per say but as it is a historical topic, the date does not matter as much due to history being concrete and unchanging.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes there is a variety of sources from different authors (mostly journals however)
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? Most of the sources are peer-reviewed journal articles from google scholar or worldcat. Maybe more source variety like interviews from professionals in the topic or more articles/books.
 * 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? Yes and no. My peer has summarized and paraphrased to the best of her abilities but with a historical topic like this, it can get very crammed and boring. However, everything was easy to read and although long, it gave the information that was needed.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not from what I saw but i could have missed something considering the length of the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The topics have very long paragraphs inside them, however they are sectioned clearly.

Images and Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A