User:Mackenziebrumbaugh/Impulse purchase/Ghodsonuo Peer Review

Peer review

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? Mackenziebrumbaugh
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Mackenziebrumbaugh/Impulse purchase

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, but it would be unnecessary.
• 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? Currently, the article is such a stub that the whole thing is kind of the lead.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? See above.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Overly detailed - MacKenzie's additions of sections could really help to reorganize the information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Some of the sources are curiously old (1950, 1962, 1987), but I don't think they are outdated.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I don't think so.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes, it comes from a very psychological perspective.
• 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? The final sentence is kind of an appeal from one of the studies. It's persuasive, but it is flagged as the opinion of the researcher. I think it's fine.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? They're almost all from JSTOR, so I think so.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I believe so.
• Are the sources current? As mentioned previously, some are older. I don't know that there is significantly different information currently in circulation.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, but they are back in the bibliography, not in the sandbox yet.

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! And thank goodness for that.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (She has not)

• 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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (it is not)

• 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I would say so.
• What are the strengths of the content added? Besides categories (because I cannot emphasize enough how much even sparsely filled categories helps an article), I think the added history helps contextualize the ways that the term changes.
• How can the content added be improved? Firstly, adding in the citations to the sandbox would be good. Second, I could only hope to see a little more information in the "Types" section (assuming that Stern isn't the only one to try to typify impulse buying).