User:Sharko2002/Low-carbon diet/TheDenverGoose Peer Review


 * Lead Section
 * The lead doesn’t seem to have been updated by my peer, in what I could see. However, the lead of the article is already quite nice, and features a good introductory sentence that is clear and concise about what is happening . The lead does not include a brief description of the article, but it does include only information that is presented in the article, and that the article sections do seem to expand on. The lead feels a good length, as it is  about 4 sentences, but looks like it could use a better source for one of the items.
 * I do think the lead could maybe use some edits from my peer, just to add the general sections that are being added and are going to be in the particular article. The lead has a good introduction statement, but the extra information could be added to make it an even better statement.


 * General Content
 * Looking at the sections that my peer has chosen to edit the content is very much relevant to the topic, and adds a more up to date spin on the information, as before, and the old article focuses on more outdated sources from when low-carbon diets were a much newer idea. All of the content seems like it belongs and is relevant to the article, and continues to move information into a global outlook as well, which expands upon the outlook from the original article. The article does begin to work with an equity gap, as it is providing information from countries other than Europe, and focuses on diets from areas such as China and India, and the religious aspect of these diets.
 * I think this section was incredibly well done, and began to include a lot of good information across the world. I am curious if you could attach any pictures of a typical European's meal and a typical meal from China possibly, to help visually show the difference. If possible, you could expand to several other diets as well if there is extra information for them as well. I also feel that there was a good equity gap that was assisted in this section as well. I can’t really think of any other additions that I would make, unless you could find more comparison about the general low carbon diets across the globe.
 * I wasn’t sure if there was also just some general info in the main article I was missing, I think I am from what I previously read on the article, but if not I would add some more general information.


 * Tone and Balance
 * The content added is completely neutral, which I know was an issue with the original article. There are no heavy biases as far as I can see, and there are not overly or under-represented view points, it just seems to list the facts, and just the facts of the information, as it doesn’t sway you towards one way or another.
 * The tone sounded really good, which I know was an issue from the original article, as we had talked about before. I think a good job was done of erasing the tone issues, as I did not detect any bias.
 * I don’t have any notes for tone in the sections my peer has written, the tone is significantly better in these sections, and I know other sections were cleaned up in the article, I think it looks good.


 * Sources
 * From what I see there are a good chunk of secondary, peer-reviewed sources that are being used in this particular article. After looking at the food packaging source it does seem to back up everything that my peer has put in the paper, and things are accurately worded to not be plagiarism but to show the same information in a more concise and clear manner. One of the sources is really recent, with it being from 2023, but others were from the 2000s, which are still relatively recent for the years. The sources do come from a variety of people, including marginalized individuals, such as several authors of color were included on the article sources as well as several women


 * General.


 * The content was well-written. The information was extremely clear and not too formal or informal, and was a good balance. I did not see any spelling or grammatical errors, and ran it through a spell check as well, and I didn’t see any. The content is broken down into sections, which has seemed appropriate for the article.
 * The general content seems good! I think the edits that have been made have been great edits!


 * Images and media
 * N/A no pictures or images added as far as I could tell.
 * Discussed and mentioned earlier :)


 * Goals
 * I think my peer did a great job of providing evidence for both sides of the argument and for erasing a lot of the bias that was present in the original article. In addition, the goal of expanding the article past just and understanding of the United States was also well done, as many new viewpoints and countries were added. The article was also expanded. I would say that these goals were well achieved.
 * I would say that my peers meet goals and accomplishments. I think that if any other goals could be added it might be to find some photos to add to the article, as well as updating the lead section of the article to accurately represent the new sections and expansion of sections added to the article. However, I think the goals were met incredibly well. The new countries added did a great job of representing new areas of the world, if possible I may include Australia and Africa, to hit all but I don’t think that is a big deal as an addition.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

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.)