User:Kjwonglam/Community food security/Seanapplegate Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Kjwonglam
- Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Kjwonglam/Community_food_security/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
- Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, for the most part. (I think in the trainings it said to try and incorporate sources from 5 years oldest)
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
- Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Most definitely
Content evaluation
[edit]The content added adds relevant information that specifically does well to address equity gaps.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? Yes
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
- 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
[edit]The added content conveys a neutral tone.
Sources and References
[edit]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
- Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, and yes.
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]The sources incorporate a wide range of perspectives, and each source is from a different author.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, with syntax fitted to each section's importance and potential topics
- 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, added content is appropriate for each sub-category.
Organization evaluation
[edit]Article incorporates interesting sub-headings and addresses each with specific and useful information.
Overall impressions
[edit]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? The content added creates a more holistic perspective on the topic. I specifically like the mentioning of "power dynamics".
- How can the content added be improved? Potentially, add more examples of long-term community solutions.
Overall evaluation
[edit]The content added provides useful information in thinking towards structural factors that determine conditions of food insecurity/security. I find this to be extremely helpful.