User:Reem kahsay/Economic sociology/JordanMay44 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Reem Kahay


 * Link to draft you're reviewing Economic sociology
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Economic sociology
 * Economic sociology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Economic Sociology

Lead section

The lead has not been updated to reflect new content. The first sentence of the article briefly describes economic sociology as  “various sociological phenomenon”. This definition is very broad and could be improved, possibly by adding examples of sociological phenomena. The main sections are, classical, contemporary, Marxist sociology, socioeconomic, and academic associations. The lead section briefly describes classical and contemporary but does not describe the other three, the article could benefit from describing them. There is a content bar that leads to each section. There are several uncommon terms in the lead and they are highlighted, leading to additional pages. This makes reading the article easier, as the reader does not have to look up terms themselves. The lead describes classical and contemporary sociological economics but could benefit from being more concise. Some of what is in the lead could be moved to the classical and contemporary sections. The lead contains information that is not in the main section.

Content

The content of the article is relative to the topic of economic sociology. The most recent content is from 2011, which is relatively dated. All the existing content belongs, but additional content is needed to make the article feel complete. The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia’s equity gaps and does not address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

The content of the article is presented neutrally. None of the claims appear heavily biased towards a specific position, it is more so an overview of information. The two main viewpoints, classical and contemporary, seem to be equally represented. The content does not persuade the reader in one way or another.

Sources and References

Some paragraphs in the article have inline citations and some do not. There is a list of references, but without inline citations, it is difficult to know where information has been pulled from, and if everything matches a reference. There is a range of sources, but they are not as thorough as they could be. The sources range from 1963-2011, the article could benefit from the addition of current sources. The article mentions a few authors, and some are referenced more than once. The article could benefit from diversifying the reference list. The article does not reference any news outlets or random websites, and the available links work. There are highlighted links to literature and people mentioned.

Organization and writing quality

The content of the article is well written, clear, and easy to read. There appears to be a few grammar and spelling errors that need to be fixed. The article is well organized into sections, has a table of contents, a see also the section, references, further readings, and one external link.

Images & Media

The article includes four captioned images that enhance the understanding of the material. The image “A diagram of actors facilitating economic exchange and their relations” is particularly helpful. It appears the images adhere to Wikipedias copyright regulations. The images are laid out on the right side of the page which is visually appealing.

Overall Impressions

The article I am reviewing did not have anything in the sandbox. Therefore I am unsure what content was added, I assume some edits were made in the main space. Thus it is impossible to judge added content, only what is in main space. The article has a talk page, but nothing is current. Overall the article has some strong points but feels incomplete. There is a decent foundation to build on. The article has a C rating and is in relatively good standing. It is missing some critical inline citations, which makes it difficult to judge the quality of the references. The article is a bit dense and seems to over reference people's names in the main section. Some of the more complex terms could be briefly described to improve the ease of reading. The article references literature that explains the topic but does not do a good job of describing the literature it is referencing. It is as if the reader should reference the literature themselves, which is counterproductive.