User:Nathan.brenn/Community gardening in the United States/Mkaddache Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

(nathan.brennan)

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Nathan.brenn/Community gardening in the United States

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

Community gardening in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

• The lead has not been edited at all and could use a restructured introductory sentence as the closest statement to an introduction is in the middle of the section. I believe that the lead section is quite concise and does a good job of hitting the main points, but could give a much better description about what the content of the article is about. Also, I do not believe that any information is missing, however, I would recommend for this section to be cleaned up and reorganized slightly.

Content

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I think the added content is relevant because it helps to give more information/examples to existing sections, strengthening the article’s main point as well as providing clarity.
• 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 honestly think that the current content in this article all belongs and I cannot see any major things that should be included that already were not.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Yes, the “benefits of gardening” section does mention, especially in the health section, how people who may have food insecurity, now have a more assured method of getting quality fruits and vegetables as food deserts are a critical equity gap that primarily affects those from disadvantaged communities.

Tone and Balance

• Is the content added neutral? In my opinion, the added content has a neutral tone and follows the Wikipedia guidelines for neutral content.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think that the culture surrounding community gardens is quite underrepresented in comparison to many of the other parts of the benefits section. The social benefit area could also be better represented within the context of the entire article.

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 didn’t see any major grammatical or spelling 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 into clear subsections.

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 adding in underrepresented topics like social movements and culture (even in the city examples) as well as cleaning up some of the syntax to make it easier for the reader to read. There is considerable room to add more information to many of the cities (examples), however, that most likely would not be feasible for this assignment because there are many cities that have not been too thoroughly researched.

What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths in the added edits come from their expansions on more underrepresented topics like culture and in social movements, which help the reader look at the intangible elements of food and its impact on communities.