User:Smithlilly3/National Consumer's League/JustinChiu1 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) Smithlilly3
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Strong start and effort, taking on an entirely new page must have been so hard. Since you are starting a new topic you had to spend time just building the parameters for how the page was going to look and the overview itself.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This is an important topic and it is important for Wikipedia to have it added to the encyclopedia for everyone to use for information. Many holes are being filled here, adding a new topic is about as gap filling as one can get.

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?
 * Most of the content is neutral, but at times it sort of has an opinion and could make someone think a certain way, this is not the goal of the assignment and wikipedia, so just be careful when making claims.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * They have 7 sources, which is multiple over the minimum of 5 sources. Its important that you have multiple sources and are super informed because since you are starting a topic, you must build a solid base for yourself and other editors to work on.

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?
 * The best thing about this article is how its organized, since you are building the skeleton you basically have free control over the design, and how it should look, i wish i could say the same for mine. No glaring issues or grammatical errors, it flows well and clearly has been read over multiple times if not by multiple people too.

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?
 * There are no images, but since its not fully done and still in the bibliography section, i believe there is still time for an image to be added to the mix.

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?
 * This is where you might run into some difficulty, the wikipedia rules are strict, but since you are focusing on such a niche topic, i dont think you will have issues when it comes to the notability, and if its too similar to other articles.

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 very good, but could use some improvements before it is fully finished. Since you are starting it you have to do more work than others, but since its all your work it can be done really well. At times it looks bare in some areas, if you only have a few sentences for a topic you should go back and add some more too make it fill out a little more. This is important because you dont want your article to feel like a big summary and overview of what is going on, you need the detail, so its more useful to others. within doing this it will make it so more people other than yourself add onto this article, making yourself a true editor of wikipedia. lastly the only other suggestion i could make is since you have multiple topics with multiple headers, at times it scrolls too much with too much text, this is where i think an image or two could be crucial. it does not have to be massive and take up a bunch of space but it would be appealing and nice on the eyes within the mass amounts of texts. Please move it to the right section, your work is great, but hard to find, i only found it due to the note you added.