User:Annremmus/Watchdog journalism/Sneeweed Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Annremmus
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Watchdog journalism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Not explicitly. It is important for the lead to reflect what the entire article is about, not just the definition and a few examples. I would add 1 or 2 sentences about the topics you added into the article (i.e. what is "detached watchdog" and why it is important for the reader). I want to read the lead and know exactly what will be presented throughout the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No. It more just explains the role and what watchdog journalism means.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is almost too concise. Needs more intro to the sub-headings in the article, as stated above.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I would like to see more current examples. Watergate is a great example, but dates back to the 70's. I think today, a few important topics that could be addressed in this article is the Trump Presidency, the environmental crisis (statements that deny it by certain companies) as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, as there are lots of references to multiple articles.
 * 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?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * There are citations to sources, but the sources only have last name and publish date. It needs to have the entire citation, even though it has it in references below. It makes it easier for the reader to find the source when it is linked to the citation directly, not just first and last name.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * No. Like I stated above, they need a direct link to the citation.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, for the most part. There is a sentence I noticed in the section "Three dimension..." ( should be three dimensions, with the s), "Then how the corruptions are publicized?". This doesn't make sense and should be revised. Other than that, it looks good.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes. When you list topics in bullet points, I would put the topic in bold, to make it easier to read (ex. "Intensity of scrutiny: It refers to levels of scrutiny...")

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I would spread the images out and have them on both the left and right side of the page to break it up a bit.