User:TayG1201/Meal kit/WikiUser481 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

TayG1201


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TayG1201/Meal_kit?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Meal kit

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

It seems the lead was not updated at all so I cannot assess the changes done because there are none. However I believe no changes were made because the lead already was concise and includes a description of the articles topic. It does not include information that is not present in the article. Its topic sentence "A meal kit is a subscription service–foodservice business model where a company sends customers pre-portioned and sometimes partially-prepared food ingredients and recipes to prepare homecooked meals." tells the reader this article will be informative on these meal kits. So the lead was not changed but even as it originally was it hits all major points. It does not go into the section description of what each section will include, however it does imply it to the reader. They can infer the sections just by reading.

Content

The content added is relevant to the topic as the new draft shows additions to previous sections along with added nutrition values. Talking about nutrition values with covid and other issues today is relevant because most people want meal kits for healthy easy meals "Studies on meal kit delivery services in Australia found that although meals contained a variety of vegetables in their servings, meals were measured to be considerably high in fat and exceeded the dietary target for sodium intake", this quote shows the issues in Australia and in so gives us a relevant example. Along with this the content is up to date because as shown here "As of early 2023, Everyplate is one of the cheapest meal kit services with plans starting at around $6 a serving. The median meal kit ranges from $9 to $10 a serving, and includes companies such as HelloFresh, Blue Apron and Home Chef." we see 2023 statistics. Another significance of this quote is cost which is a new added category. This is relevant because cost is such a big issue in todays market.

Tone and Balance

The content added is neutral for the most part. I did notice a bit of a push in the meal kit positive direction with the addition of the line "Overall, users who purchase meal kits report it as a way to lift the burden off of time barriers, mental exhaustion, and improving quality time spent with family". This was included in the review section. This I feel in a factual article can add a bias in the reader. This may not be intentional but it will occur. I don't think the negatives of the meal kit were gone over. We see the cost is lower than most things, we see good reviews, what we do not see is why this may not be for everyone. Why buying this meal may not be ideal for you. So I think the article attempts to persuade you to buy the kit making it seem more like a paid promotion. So I would add a bit more neutrality in the reviews section. Saying something like "This family states", and at the end not say overall it was good, just state the review and that is all.

Sources and References

I was impressed by the sources. They are reliable, most done by researchers that I have seen used in scholarly settings. The source of information is all reliable and trustworthy due to the reputation of the sources used. The sources are read very well and this is shown in the contents reflection of the article. Everything said in the additions was said int he articles. The sources are thorough, they are also current with some even dating to Jan 9th 2023. I think since there were about 7 sources added and I inspected the authors I can confirm they are diverse. We see different opinions and analysis which is nice for those who want more information. I do not think better sources could be found. The links all work. Once again really good job on the sources.Organization

The article is well-written, it is very concise and easy to read. The points made are clear and the flow of topics is nice. I like how we go from introduction to history, then we go into the environmental impacts, research and cost. Then we end off with reviews. An issue I do have however, is adding in the cost section after the environmental impact. This was all business and money related sections are together. The content added is broken down to reflect major points and the cost section added really shows how good this meal kit can be. The diversity in pricing shown here "Some of the more expensive meal kit services range from $10 to $13 a serving from services such as Sunbasket and Green Chef", this shows the different companies and thier pricing. This would make sense to add near business. There are some red underline errors even wikipedia picks up, however these are in the directly cited quotes so maybe changing those to paraphrases might help with that.

Images and Media

There are no images added to the article.

Overall impressions

The content added improved the overall quality of the article, I feel the article is now more complete. I feel more comfortable with the material compared to before. I feel like adding in the costs really puts into perspective the purpose of these plans. There wasn't a true purpose defined before and now you can tell "oh this is why they are made!". The strengths are the new sections which help us to see why we should buy this and why it's a good idea. It is informative and factual which is really important and a big plus. It can be improved with better organization of the cost section. It also can be improved by altering or removing the review section. Either remove it or make it more factual using more facts from the study. Instead of a review make it an analysis.