User:Skoodles/1992–1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak/Ngo0014 Peer Review

General info
Skoodles
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Talk:1992–1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 1992–1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * The article does not have a clear lead or introductory sentence that concisely describes the article's topic but appears to be a collection of information related to the 1992-1993 Jack in the Box E. coli outbreak.


 * There is no clear division of major sections in the passage; it presents information in a continuous narrative format rather than section headers.
 * The passage contains information about the E. coli outbreak, its causes, consequences, lawsuits, and its legacy. While it provides detailed information, it does not introduce any new information beyond what is presented in the passage itself.
 * Overall, the passage is detailed and informative, but it lacks a clear introductory sentence and section headers that would make it easier to navigate and understand as an article or document.
 * The new content suggested has been added which is the confusion of how many children die

Content:


 * The content added by the reviewer appears to be relevant to the topic as it provides information about the media's response to the outbreak and how Foodmaker Inc. officials initially defended themselves but later accepted. This information contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the incident.
 * The references provided is reliable and the content is up-to-date and credible.
 * There doesn't appear to be missing content or content that doesn't belong in the context of this topic
 * The article doesn't address Wikipedia's equity gaps or topics related to historically underrepresented populations

Tone and balance:


 * The content added is neutral and without evident bias
 * It focuses on presented factual information rather than persuading the reader in favor or against another point of view

Sources and references:


 * The sources are credible and relevant
 * The content mentions two sources. One is from an academic journal (International Journal of Hospitality Management), and the other is from a source called "Lessons learned about protecting America’s food supply." The use of a scholarly source suggests reliability.
 * The content mentions two sources but more sources are needed to cover the topic comprehensively.
 * The first source contain a diverse spectrum of authors while the second one only has one author who has a PHD
 * The links works

Organization:


 * The content added more depth by providing valuable information and a new section that focuses on the media and official's responses
 * There is not any grammatical or spelling errors.


 * If the added content enhances the article's depth and completeness by providing valuable information, it can be considered a strength.
 * Improvement Suggestions: To further improve the content, you can consider adding more sources, especially peer-reviewed ones, to enhance credibility. Ensure that the content aligns accurately with the sources cited. Make sure the writing is clear and well-structured for better readability.

Images and media:


 * The image added is the logo of Jack in the Box which is a public domain
 * More images could be added to enhance the understanding of the topic

Overall impression:


 * The content added improved the quality of the article because it added depth and completeness
 * The content added can be improved through providing more peer-viewed sources.