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

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

NUstudent1316

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/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:

1. 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.
2. 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.