User:Sedonap/Sweatshop-free/Nathan thomo Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username). Sedona
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Sweatshop-free

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? N/A
 * 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? Not really, could tie in all the sections into this in a clean way.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?Yes it talks about the American Apparel
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise

Lead evaluation:
It is overall good, I would try to tie together more of the sections into the lead section as I do not think there is much talk to set up the rest of the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
Yes the content is relavent to the topic talking about activism and the anti sweat shop movement. Yes the content does contribute that the time is close enough where the information is still important. I think the content all match the article of what the article is about. the Scandals, activism, and types are all good to write about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added is neutral and discusses the activism and sweatshops in America, It does not sway either side and is kept in a way where the information added enhances the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
I could be mistaken but I do not see the new content cited with a source to back it up.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
I think it is indeed easy to read and that the information that is added is really clear and concise. The article looks like it is written well and is very clean in terms of errors.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall I think the part you added fits well with the article and the strengths are the scandals for sure (if you can find more scandals that would be really cool and make the article even more whole. I think the part you added help strengthens the activist section of the article more.