User:Mollyanders/Hard seltzer/TayG1201 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
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?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

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 for 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?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Mollyanders

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Mollyanders/Hard_seltzer?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Hard seltzer

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

The lead is great, first sentence is concise and clear. I feel like it doesn't need further information.

Content

I would delete the first sentence in the history page- because it sounds essay-like. I feel like it could deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps in some way- adding onto one of the sections. All content is relevant to the topic.

Tone and Balance

The article does a good job of maintaining neutrality, however I notice a few points mentioned about the positive health benefits in comparison to other alcoholic drinks. Maybe include some of the negative health effects/research downsides of hard seltzers to even out the article a bit more.

Sources and References

I would add a date to source 13 and get rid of the added external link on 12 (the red text) at the references section.

Organization

The history section is very long, I would try to split it up. I would try to add another section.

Images and Media

The image is small, I would try to make it bigger or add another image!!

Overall Impressions

I feel like this portion "It is an alcoholic beverage with a low-calorie, low-carb and low-sugar content. Across all hard seltzers brands, there is a medium of only 100 calories, 2g of carbs, 0-2g of sugar while still maintaining 5% alcohol. This offers a healthier alternative to drinking more calorically heavy alcoholic beverages. Companies use these fact to their advantage often stating the nutrition facts in easy to read and obvious places. The Social Media presence of Hard Seltzer companies is massive and often depict healthy people drinking and having fun further perpetuating the notion that Hard Seltzers are a healthy alcoholic alternative. The marketing of Hard seltzers have often relied on their trendiness." could be used in it's own section maybe health-related info category? Or like a category w/ motivations for designing seltzer and advertising? Something along those lines because I feel like it is separate from the history category. I think the fermentation section is a great addition! I would just organize that ^^ portion of the article and maybe add a list table of some of the hard seltzer brands with links!! The major strength is that all of the information added is backed by many strong references and it remains unbiased.