User:NUstudent1316/Food labelling and advertising law (Chile)/Susususushi 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?

NUstudent1316

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:NUstudent1316/Food_labelling_and_advertising_law_%28Chile%29?preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Food labelling and advertising law (Chile)#History of front-of-package warning label

Evaluate the drafted changes

Content & Tone:

I particularly liked that you were able to identify the different points of view of the Lancet and the British Food Journal when discussing Chile's food labelling law. And when you discuss the results of the experiment, you state all the conclusions objectively, without intentionally concealing them according to your own knowledge. You clearly demonstrate your neutrality and provide highly topical content. I don't have any dyslexia in my reading or the feeling that you're forcing me or leading me to accept an argument.

However, I think the comprehensibility of the content can be improved by following a few tips:

The discussion of the 3 law pillars is very concise and understandable, but it also causes me confusion when reading. I hope to know more about the reasons why these three pillars helped to make the law, what contributed to the emergence of these three pillars, and what is the difference between the discussion of these three pillars and Law 20.606.
Another suggestion is for the “Impact in purchasing and perception” part. I noticed you have following sentence— “A majority of Chileans were able to state the purpose of the law and its effectiveness, but few were able to address what the guideline daily amount meant”. I think you should be more careful stating “majority” or using “main” in Wikipedia article. You can replace these words by data (like how many% of Chileans). Otherwise, it’s similar a academic paper statement and may be misunderstand that you are making subjective argument

Source:

The few references you have chosen are very authoritative. The Lancet, for example, is an internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal of high credibility. Several of the other references also try to choose internationally recognized sources, not just well-known ones in the United States. And most of the references are very new, mostly 2022. This increases the credibility of your information. Because policies and regulations change all the time, updated references are a good choice. But according to Wikipedia's discussion of credible references, it's possible to refer to older data when discussing historical information. Because the older data is more relevant to the historical events and there may be more information available and it's good to use the new sources of information to discuss whether the older references still hold up.

Organization

I especially like your organization. The information contained in your subheadings and the logic of the different sections are very clear. My comprehension as a reader was greatly reduced, even if it was an area I knew nothing about. Your writing is cohesive and comprehensive. You are able to provide a summary sentence before discussing specific examples. This helps me refine the content of your article.