User:Armond.trice/Understanding Media/Sabub Peer Review

Peer review
Since there has not yet been information added to this article by my peer, my peer review will be more about the current content and suggestions on how it can be improved by my peer.—Sabub talk

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Understanding Media

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Not applicable at this time.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The introductory sentence is a good description of the topic.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

The lead is a bit long. Some information could be moved to other sections of the article.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I think is it a bit overly detailed and can be trimmed down.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

N/A


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

N/A


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Nothing noticeable is missing or does not belong.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

The article as it stands is fairly neutral in language.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The claims are almost strictly from the source material. It would be good if opposing viewpoints or critic's ideas of the subject were also included.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * 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

No new content has been added, but when it is, there should be a focus on reliable sources.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Many of the links are either broken, lead to an unrelated page, or are cited incorrectly. This should be fixed when going in to add content.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

N/A to all three. When editing, organization should be focused on since there are many blocks of texts that could make it hard to read.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * 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 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Since there is no new content added to the article there is not much I can say about it. Rather than adding content, I think there should be more focus on verifying what is already present.

Overall evaluation
Since it is really the beginning of our article writing I can not critique the work that has been done so far. The article is quite lengthy so I would advise that look at the content that is already there. Many of the claims in the article are marked with citation needed. Some of the sources need fixing and more should be added since the article is heavily reliant on primary sources. Many of the sections can probably be summarized as well. When it comes to adding new content, I would recommend a section about how the book and its ideas have influenced others and the subject of new media. That way it will relate back to our class. —Sabub talk