User:Nathan.brenn/Urban agriculture/Mkaddache 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?

(nathan.brennan)

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Nathan.brenn/Urban agriculture

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Urban agriculture

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

• The lead has been extensively edited with clarifications about its differentiation from mainstream agriculture as well as its utilization in modern social movements. This section does include a clear and concise introductory sentence. I believe that the lead does a good job of hitting the main points in a clear concise manner while offering decent descriptions about what the content of the article is about. Also, I do not believe that any information is missing.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think the added content is relevant because it helps to give more definitions as well as provide clarity, making it easier for those unaware of urban agriculture to have a good idea after reading the page.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Because I do not have access to the bibliography of the new edits and actual citations are not added (besides in text), I cannot determine this.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I do not think that the two sentences in the “impact” section about urban and peri urban is unnecessary since it is not truly related to the more in depth analysis of the other subsections as well as providing confusion since UPA is not mentioned elsewhere.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, social injustices are mentioned throughout the article from the nutrition section to health as lower income individuals as well as POC tend to have accessibility issues in regards to local, fresh agricultural opportunities, a considerable equity gap primarily dependent on income.

Tone and Balance

• Is the content added neutral? I do believe that the content has a neutral tone and follows the proper Wikipedia guidelines for neutral content.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think there could be some more content additions to the certain sections like noise pollution are highly underdeveloped in comparison to others.

Sources and References

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.

• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?/Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? If not, can you think of anything we've read that might be useful for them? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
• Are the sources current? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
• Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? The new sources are not cited or presented in the bibliography so I cannot evaluate this.

Organization

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I do believe that the added content is very concise and clear.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I did not see any major errors.

• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think that the added content is pretty well-organized.

Overall impressions

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?/How can the content added be improved? Overall, I think that the content has greatly improved the article by cleaning up a lot of unnecessary mentionings as well as adding some clarifications, especially in the lead section, for people unaware of the happenings in the world of urban agriculture. Maybe there is room to add more actual additions of text to places other than the lead section as the economy of scale and noise pollution sections could definitely have some more analysis to them.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths in the added edits come from their ability to clarify different areas such as using UA vs UPA which can prevent confusion for the reader trying to learn about a new topic.