User:Cearly2/Consumer movement/Shenglintan Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
It is updated
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Yes, there is a introductory sentence including the definition.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Yes, the sort is very clear.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
No, all the leads corresponding each part of content.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
The lead is properly sorted with classified detail.

Lead is properly written.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Yes it is.
Is the content added up-to-date?
Yes, there is upated of the content.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
No, all the contents corresponding to the specific information.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
No, all the information is well-supported by the references resources with proper view.

The content is clear and accurate.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Yes, it is all supported by the data and reliable sourses.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
No, I didn't find any.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
In my opinion, it is properly presented.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
No, i think it is neutral to both side.

Neutral and clear.

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?
Yesm it reflect properly.
Are the sources current?
Not all current, from 1941-2001
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
The sources is diverse enought and there is no marginalized people's viewpoint.
Check a few links. Do they work?
they works.

The reference sources is reliable and wide.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
The content is concise and easy to read because it is well-sorted with subtitles.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
I didn't find any error.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
The sort and structure is well-organized.

The organization is clear and easy to read.

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

There is no images and media added yet.

have not add images yet.

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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
Yes, the content give the read clear comprehension of each category.
What are the strengths of the content added?
There is a charts that strongly shows the changes of the consumer movement in US.
How can the content added be improved?
Add some images and media to better support the content.

It is properly written and sorted and referenced.