User:TenCatsInATrenchcoat/Hoarding (economics)/TenCatsInATrenchcoat Peer Review

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?


 * Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. The    words are well defined and all the concepts described are linked, which is     really helpful.


 * The phrasing of the section on artificial scarcity    confused me a little. It starts with "The term "hoarding" may     include", except the article is specifically about economic hoarding,     not hoarding generally, and the section is about a term which can fall     into the category of economic hoarding. Switching "hoarding" to     "economic hoarding" could help, or, flipping the sentence so     that it starts with what the section is about, like "Artificial     scarcity can be one effect of economic hoarding" or something. Still,     the section is clear and includes relevant information to the article.

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * The article is for the most part objective and neutral.    It presents multiple reasons for economic hoarding, including     motivations/circumstances where it happens. There are some sections where     the phrasing makes it sound like an argument, but adding a citation and     starting the sentence with a source for the claim would resolve the issue.     Like with "A common intention of economic hoarding is to drive the     price of a product up". This isn't necessarily an opinion, but     there's no clarification on how the knowledge of people's motivations are     known. If there's a study/theory/source this could be attributed to, it     would work. Even if the claim about what motivates economic hoarding is from     a biased source, depending on context, you could explain the bias and     present it as one theory on the cause of hoarding, which is relevant     background information for the article.

Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?


 * No, it's all pretty even, for the sources which exist.    Overall, there's a lot of content for only two sources, so while it's not     unbalanced between the two sources, adding more sources would make it a     better representation of the concept

Check the citations: Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?


 * The link to source 1 works, source 2 doesn't.
 * Source 1 is definitely reliable, and n. It's a double    blind peer reviewed journal that's meant to be accessible to non academic     readers as well as economists. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/journals/jacr/publication-ethics
 * The concepts in the article are generally supported,    there's areas with multiple facts that could use more sources (see next     point).
 * Some claims that could use sources immediately after:    "Hoarding behavior is a common response", "There is often     an implication that hoarding occurs because", "Subsequently, the     product or commodity becomes scarce, causing the value of the product to     rise." The last one is because the introduction has a source, but it     looks like the source is for the definition of economic hoarding. The     following sentences go into what the effects and process of economic     hoarding are, which becomes a different claim.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?


 * Source 1 is great, and I'm not    sure how fast the field of economics changes. 1975 isn't necessarily out     of date, but including another source, even from a more recent edition of     the same journal, might be a good idea. Not for the definitions and stuff,     but for the social implications section, because of how much different social    groups buying power has changed since the 70s



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.)