User:Zstillman/Brand piracy/Sodonn12 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zstillman


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Zstillman/Brand_piracy?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Brand piracy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes there is a clear concise definition of brand piracy right at the outset. It is short and sets out exactly what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? This needs to be worked on if you are adding major sections to the article. Not sure how you intend to structure this but if you are breaking it down into sections then make sure to touch on these in your intro.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? I noticed that in the original article you chose there is little to nothing in the intro paragraph. You did a great job of adding on to this with the US Patent office as well as how the Supreme Court recognized the need to protect trademarks due to brand piracy.
 * I s the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? A little overly detailed, especially when you get towards the middle of the intro section and at the end. I think you would be better suited to split these more detailed facts into different sections would help. I see that the original article has sections so it could be your intention is to add your information into the sections on the original article or structure it somewhat similarly.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All the info you added is relevant to the topic. I thought the original article was too shallow on the topic so I liked that you added more depth to the topic with the US Border Patrol issue as well as adding the legal aspects to brand piracy.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? All content appears up to date. The book you cite to in the first couple of sentences is from 2007 though, might want to try and find a newer source on brand piracy.
 * I s there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As far as content missing, I would aim to add something that describes the current brand piracy business. How much money is this industry worth? Where are the largest brand piracy operations? Has there been any major busts lately in the brand piracy space by federal law enforcement? I think all of these points could be developed a little further but you are on the right track.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * I s the content added neutral? The article is written in an unbiased tone. There is nothing to show that the author is leaning towards one side or the other: stronger or weaker brand protections. It is all very procedural as far as the laws surrounding brand piracy.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? If there are people who want weaker brand protections you could add that into the article to give another perspective.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, this article is straight down the middle.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, all have a credible source, including books, statutes, secondary sources, encyclopedias, etc.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes they are thorough but might need expansion. The case used is from the 1800s so it might be beneficial to show how modern lawsuits under trademark law are ruled on today.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? I think adding news articles on modern brand piracy situations would be a good idea to flesh out the topic a little bit more.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? All Links function properly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * I s the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There are no grammatical errors or spelling errors to be seen. The structure could be changed a little so there is not just 2 paragraphs. It would be a little easier to read if headings were used. This is a dense topic so splitting things up would help the reader.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:

RESPONSE
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes this draft did a good job of adding to the relatively simple article on brand piracy that was already published. This article has better sources and more in depth analysis of the legal issues.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The main strength is the inclusion of the legal aspects of brand piracy. Some improvements would be adding more modern cases involving brand piracy.

Thank you for your comments. I am going to check out that source and potentially add it into my draft. Your feedback is also very informative and will help me with improving my article.