User:TayG1201/Meal kit/WanjiaRuan Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User Name: TayG1201


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link: Meal Kit Draft Version


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link: Meal Kit Exited Version

Lead
Tay has removed some slightly confusing information from the Lead section and corrected the citation section. As a result, the Lead section appears to be much clearer. In the opening paragraph, the first sentence explains very clearly how the industry operates and what its products are. In addition, the Lead section distinguishes between metal kits and other terms that may be confusing. There is no description of the subsequent sections in the Lead section, which is a section that should be added. In order to provide a more complete understanding of the business model, it would be helpful to include an explanation of 'where and when this is a business model', which would help the reader to gain a more accurate understanding of the business model.

Content
In the content section, Tay provides more details regarding the environmental impact section, adding more data and information. Content concerning packing and the comparison between grocery and meal kits is essential for meal kits, and Tay's description of this section is up to date. 'Recyclable' is another issues related to meal kit's environmental impact.

The Nutritional Value Research section is another new addition. This consideration cannot be separated from food-related content; cost and customer service are also significant factors. New sections have been added to the meal kit pages in order to provide more comprehensive information. The content of each paragraph has excellent evidence that supports it. However, there are no general or summarized sentences, which can make reading difficult and make no predictions about what follows.

For more information, considering the nature of this industry and the rise of some companies, I believe this section of 'Business' could benefit from more content -- An overview of how the industry operates, and how it has improved over time. Those are all excellent resources for readers who wish to gain an understanding of the industry and service rather than the product itself.

Tone and Balance
Tay's improvement helped to establish a neutral tone for this article. The 'Environmental Impacts' section provides readers with both pro and con opinions. It would have been better if the paragraph discussing freezer gel packs elaborated on how those chemicals will damage the environment. An imbalance exists between the length of the article and its focus on the environmental impact of the Meal kit.

Furthermore, only one perspective is mentioned in the Nutrition Value Research section; perhaps adding some other perspectives would enhance the section. To neutralize the cost section, comparing Meal Kit prices to grocery shopping would be helpful instead of only mentioning meal kit prices are relatively expensive.

Sources and References
There was an increase of 7 citations from 9 to 16, which is a significant improvement. Citations range from 2017 to recent articles, reflecting that these resources are sufficiently current. However, some of the links could be updated with the most recent version. For example, Reference [1] has now ranking 2023 best meal kit service instead of 2017.

Meanwhile, I found several citations that were cited multiple times for the same opinion. Reference [14] appears only in the User Experience section and is the only citation in that paragraph. This is not an accurate reflection of the diversity of authors contributing to the viewpoint in this section. Perhaps adding additional sources and expanding the content of the corresponding section would be more effective and ensure that the viewpoint is not solely based on a single viewpoint.

Organization
I find the added content to be well-written, easy to read, and easy to understand. The statements are free of grammatical and spelling errors. To make navigation easier, the added content includes sections and general headings. These sections do not overlap, and the categories are very clear and standardized. It might be more clear if 'Environmental Impact' had sub-headings for different issues.

Overall Expression
Thank you for those amazing edits!

In general, I find this article to be clear and unambiguous. The topic has been updated with a large amount of content that is extremely relevant. It surprised me that the original article excluded nutritional and cost information! For a meat kit, this information is extremely helpful!

However, I think that these contents may not be comprehensive. I think a few more additions are needed to make the article more neutral. Furthermore, in terms of sources and references, some further work is still needed: fixing or updating some links on existing pages, finding more citations to support some ideas. It would be helpful to add more citations to backup information!