User:Anonymousardvark/Social media and identity/Airalia Peer Review

General info
Anonymousardvark, Icarlee3338,  Adam12202
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Social Media and Identity sandbox
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Social media and identity

Evaluate the drafted changes
I'm a little confused by the Media Literacy section. I don't see how it relates to the topic, which is social media and identity. At the end of the section, it is mentioned that there is not a lot of research tying media literacy to social media identity. Would it not be better to just remove that section completely if it doesn't apply? The section is well-written, I just do not see the need for it.

The Young Adult section has good references and great points that tie the topic to the section header. Some of it does not read smoothly, as you can tell the sentences have been cut and moved around. The sentence mentioning Identity Formation is a fragment, and it needs more information so it doesn't seem just stuck in there. The paragraph added at the end is really interesting as well.

Self Presentation section has a few sentences that are biased. The part that says filters "are amusing" but "created vast problems" seems to be the author's own words and not backed up by any sources. Also make sure to put a reference citation in the text from the 2018 research study if that is where the information about the Snapchat filters and plastic surgery came from. The additional sentences under the Audience subsection is also not backed up by sources. Overall, this section should be proofread for grammar.

In the Influences on Body Image section, the theories paragraph is interesting and a good addition. However the information on it is not backed up by reliable sources. Linking to an already existing Wikipedia site for the theory is not enough. The Meier and Grey 2014 mention also needs a citation in the reflist.

In general, I'm concerned that the body image section is much longer than the other sections. It does not make the article feel balanced. More media can be added to the article especially the Self Preservation section which could have an image of a Snapchat filter if possible. I would suggest to read the entire article again just too proofread grammar and sentence structure. If you're looking to add more information, I think there are definitely content gaps such as safe spaces for LGBT+ identifying people (especially teens!) and how that can influence identity. Looking at the original article, the lead can definitely be updated as well to reflect the three sections mentioned in the body of the article.