User:RandomSTAY/Agriculture in the United States/OutskirtAZ Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

RandomSTAY


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RandomSTAY/Agriculture_in_the_United_States?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Agriculture in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has not yet been updated to reflect the new content added; however, with a topic as broad as “Agriculture in the United States,” it would be redundant to address the new additions in the article lead. On the article, the lead is already well constructed with a concise introductory sentence followed by a brief outline of the article’s sections. As it stands, the lead does not contain any irrelevant or non-present information in the article.

Given the context of the standing information in the article, the added content is relevant and up-to-date, particularly as it explains how corn has come to be the number one cash crop in the United States over soybeans. Because soybeans are no longer the primary cash crop in the United States, the additions done by the editor are very much needed. On top of this, the additions regarding the growth of the cotton industry in the United States as well as the harmful impacts of pesticide usage expand the scope of the information already provided in the article. Indirectly, the article deals with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps as the topic of agriculture in the United States inherently deals with agricultural workers, many of whom are Latinx and have varying immigration status. The editor’s addition of how pesticide use disproportionately affects migrant workers addresses this equity gap.

All of the added content is objective and neutral, not indicating any specific position on U.S. agriculture. In general, the article comes from a neutral viewpoint as it is mostly comprised of historical narratives and statistics. However, some of the wording presents these facts in a more anecdotal manner, something which can be fixed with a slight change in words. For example, the sentence which says, “Be it food items like candy and soda, which contain high-fructose corn syrup, or the shining wax on the store advertisements, corn is everywhere,” has a very casual sound to it which could be made to sound more professional by a different word choice or easily changing the order of the words in the sentence. Of course, the reader may draw their own opinions from the information added by the editor; however, because all of the information is factual and non-selective, the additions are written from a neutral point of view.

All new content reflects and is backed up by a reliable source of information. There may be a greater wealth of literature available on the topic, but this would only be necessary to explore for further additions to the article. The sources are relatively current as they are all from the last 15 years, but there may be newer statistics and information available to back up the new content added to the article. One out of the four source authors is from a community of Latinx farmworkers, which is relatively representative of marginalized groups, especially in relation to the brevity of the additions.

In total, the article is well-written with only a couple phrases that should be reconsidered in order to achieve a more academic tone. There are no grammatical or spelling errors. The editor followed the general structure of the article well and placed their additions accordingly. Generally speaking, the content added has updated some of the points put forth in the article while also offering alternate viewpoints on the state of United States agriculture. As far as improvement goes, I would simply recommend revisiting each sentence to ensure that it fits the overall tone and writing style of the article.