User:Redrose36/Costco/Hockey.Golf.Fishing 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[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)

Redrose36

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Redrose36/Costco#cite note-1
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Costco

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:

The lead has been updated to “Sustainability Efforts” which perfectly reflects the new content that was added. The first sentence is broader, the last sentence of the first paragraph does a better job of leading you into what to expect in this section of the article. The lead starts with information that makes it sound good but arguably should be in a different section previously such as products. Switching that to the emissions of those sectors they have would be better. The information in the lead about the UN goals, the packaging and the table is not previously present in the article which is good and fits the lead title. Lastly, maybe some more information about what the UN goals and how that is good or why that is good is the only further information I would add to the lead.

Content:

The content is relevant to the sustainability of Costco and the different areas they do business in. There is some that could be taken out for being too broad or previously said before (summarizing). And added with more of how Costco effects climate change and how climate change impacts Costco would also be very interesting. The linked sources all seem to be good sources and up to date. I would say it does address an overlooked and underrepresented area of most Wikipedia articles being sustainability, emissions and climate change.

Tone and Balance:

The content added seems to be all based on fact and secondary sources I don’t get a sense of opinion anywhere. The view of more of the impact climate change has on packaging and sustainability is underrepresented. The content seems to be genuine and not trying to persuade a certain way just inform about sustainability of Costco and its packaging efforts.

Sources and References:

All the content seems to be from secondary sources. Based on research and looking through them it seems the Costco Website wasn’t used or any biased journals. When sources are cited, they are first cited correctly. And when looking at the articles the information published seems to reflect the information found in these articles. All the sources seem relevant and current enough to still be used and held as reliable. The links seem to all work as they should. When looking at the authors they all seem to be peer reviewed articles and seem to be qualified in the fields they are publishing in. All of this is reliable and good for the content of the article, and it shows.

Organization:

The information is written clearly and is readable. The pacing of the paragraphs makes sense and makes the readability good. I couldn’t find any spelling or grammatical errors. The sustainability section makes sense as an introduction/lead and the packaging section is also broken down nicely but is short.

Images and Media:

The media added was a table, it is creative and interesting. I think the most valuable part is the amount of plastic reduction but this needs to be added to show that significance because some of the numbers sound big, but is it really? I don’t know and probably most readers won’t either. Other than that, I really like it and it adds a lot to the article.

Overall Impressions:

The article is more complete due to the added information and media about sustainability because for this company the article is long with many sections but nothing close to this. This is overlooked but shouldn’t be so it would be a good addition. The strengths are the few numeric things like the number of UN goals and the amount of plastic reduced. Some elaboration of how these goals and reductions impact climate change and how that is good would go a long way. Also thinking about a section of the climate change impact on Costco.