User talk:SachiyoOuchi/sandbox

Peer review (By Erik Cervantes) 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) SachiyoOuchi Link to draft you're reviewing: User:SachiyoOuchi/sandbox 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? Yes. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? So far yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The outline section of 'Benefits' might warrant some bias/partial language. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, though a section about possible problems with agroecology should be added. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No pictures added, but there should be in the final product.

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? Images and media evaluation 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? Yes. How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The references definitely have room to expand, and since this is just a draft, I'm not expecting the literature mentioned at the bottom to be exhaustive yet. 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? Yes. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No. New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. What are the strengths of the content added? Clear direction and outline, good information and sources. How can the content added be improved? Add what opponents would say about agroecology. Be careful to not sound too partial when you mention the benefits of agroecology. Move the sections that mention pro/con arguments to the bottom of the article. Overall evaluation -I cannot find the original article so I’m a little bit confused about what exactly you added to the article and what was already there. I assume that this is an original article you're writing?

-It looks like you have a very clear outline/direction indicated by your headings and subheading that you listed on the article.

-I think it was a good call to mention benefits of practicing agroecology. However, I would be careful to not be too argumentative or normative in your description of the benefits. I’ve noticed that Wikipedia places a strong emphasis on objectivity and neutral writing so just be careful to stray away from this impartiality. I suggest using the phrase “proponents say.”

-Since you already included a “Benefits” section to the article, I would also add a “Problems/Detriments” section in order to mention what opponents to benefits would argue. This will help the article be more neutral and informative.

-This is just a personal preference, but it makes more organizational sense to me if you included the Benefits and Detriments sections towards the end of the article. I think all information should be included before what opponents/proponents say so that the reader has all the relevant information to assess the pros/cons of agroecology.

-I would try diversifying your references listed in your article. Most of them come from the same source; “ROPPA.” Something to keep in mind as you continue to research your topic and find more sources.Erikbcervantes (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)