User:Aifabiola20/Anything Goes Podcast by Emma Chamberlain/Rosaamoore Peer Review

General info
Aifabiola20
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing User:Aifabiola20/Anything Goes Podcast by Emma Chamberlain
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) New page

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No lead yet; background and content only.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? I would brief describe the podcast and Emmas significance in the podcast world.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? you could utilize one or more of this topics in the lead to catch the readers eyes; pop culture, acne, body image, addiction, fashion, among many others.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Don't give too much information, but highlight what entails in her podcast.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content explains the various topics addressed, pop culture, acne, body image, addiction, fashion, among many others. It doesn't elaborate much, but explains it addresses all topics are inclusive.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Shares a list of Podcast Titles and Dates.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? More information about episodes or one episode that has been watched/listened to more than others.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? This is a new page, it addresses the presence of this podcast by Emma Chamberlain.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Neutral - matter of fact, explains what the podcast is about, but doesn't describe too much detail.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, podcast for young adults and daily challenges they may face
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No,
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Content is one sided with a neutral tone with simple facts about podcast

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Sources are the podcast and people magazine
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - Not much information, but yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? More sources needed
 * Are the sources current? Yes, but more needed.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? More sources
 * 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.) I one searched newspaper articles for Emma Chamberlain - some quality information I shared one article below and the one search for EC. https://www.proquest.com/docview/2779834982?parentSessionId=4ajd3aDUIBJH3aolrxWpJHlZSIrEZOPt5pb80ni6T%2BY%3D&pq-origsite=primo&accountid=13802
 * https://csu-sfsu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/npsearch?vid=01CALS_SFR:01CALS_SFR&query=any,contains,Emma%20chamberlain&search_scope=all&offset=0
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some grammatical errors, but very minor.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Explains Emma's background and leads into the content of the episodes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images yet - would like to see a picture of Emma Chamberlain perhaps conducting one of her podcast.
 * 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? No, more sources needed.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Provide more sources on content of episodes, more watched/listened to. More interesting topic. Use one search to find more sources.
 * 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? Yes and no - I didn't see a page that was similar to this topic to be used as a guide. On Being - I searched podcast and found this as an example.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I like the start of the article - I like that you added a new page to the wiki information network. I like that you listed all of the podcast.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Lots of time invested in find out each podcast, date and title. Room to grow on notable things in Emmas life and facts about the podcast.
 * How can the content added be improved? More content - provide details about notable podcast and current information about Emma Chamberlain. What is she doing now?

Evaluate the drafted changes
(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.)