ACheRey
1) Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
I was distracted by a couple grammatical errors and poorly-worded sentences in the introduction of article.
A couple grammatical changes that would benefit this introduction are:
The second sentence of the first paragraph is grammatically incorrect. It should state: “This has health and diet implications in individuals living in these areas, where nutritious food is not readily available. Some of these claims, such as linking food deserts with obesity in children, are disputed.”
The second paragraph should be shortened and rephrased as: “Racially and socioeconomically discriminatory policies and patterns of development, such as redlining, have resulted in uneven distribution of resources, including supermarkets.”
2) Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
The definition of “food desert” is over-represented throughout the entire article. The definition is not consistent, which makes the points or arguments being made difficult to grasp. I would suggest eliminating the use of constant definitions, especially because the introduction does a great job defining the term, so it is not necessary to repeat it throughout the article.
The idea of affordability and low-income issues is over-represented. These topics are practically the same, and could be condensed for a more coherent point.
Overconsumption Article Critique
editI was distracted by the first two paragraphs of this article, because they are extremely disorganized. The first paragraph makes simple definitions too complex, which makes it difficult to understand any of the information in the first paragraph. It also needs to have more citations.
The second paragraph of the introduction begins with discussion of a "theory," but there was no previous mention of over consumption being considered a theory. This point is unclear, and needs to be either restated or explained further.