User:Bacarellam1/Literacy in the New Media Age by Gunther Kress/Water King's Falcon Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bacarellam1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Literacy in the New Media Age by Gunther Kress

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.)

Lead

 * The lead was entirely developed by Bacarellam1.
 * The introductory sentence is concise and accurate on the topic.
 * The lead does not describe the major sections of the article though it contains information later addressed.
 * The information included in the lead is included in the main body of the article.
 * The lead is very concise as well as informational.

Content

 * The content is relevant to the topic as it's the description of the contents of the book by Kress.
 * The content is up-to-date.
 * The article is missing content such as reception, other related works, and possibly notable citations.
 * The potential to discuss equity gap is there in the History and Future of Literacy section in terms of literacy having been not accessible to being accessible to marginalized groups but has yet to be written.

Tone and Balance

 * The content is neutral and factual in nature.
 * There are claims in the article but the claims are ones made in the book and are a representation of its contents.
 * The Shifting of the Medium section seems more heavily developed than the other sections.
 * There is no attempt at persuasion in this article.

Sources and References

 * A lot of the information needs citation still even if it's redundant, there's a lot of uncited information.
 * The information from the sources is accurately reflected where cited.
 * The references reflect the available literature on the book and its subject matter.
 * The sources are current and from the 00's.
 * The authors of the references are varied and represent marginalized group with authors from Spain and Singapore.
 * Bacarellam1 seems to have found the best sources available for this book.
 * Only 2 out of the 5 links are currently able to be followed.

Organization

 * The content is well written, concise, and clear.
 * There are a couple of missed words and grammatical errors.
 * Of the content added the sections make sense as a reflection of the contents of the book.

Images and Media

 * There are no images or media added.

New Article

 * The article has at least 4 notable secondary, independent sources on the book.
 * The reference list is not extensive but does cover most of what is currently written on the subject.
 * The article is pretty straightforward in terms of article pattern, the only I might add is a chapter overview.
 * The article does not currently link to other articles, my recommendation would be to link it to the wiki page on the author.

Overall Impressions

 * The content added contributes significantly to the articles development and the now available information.
 * The strengths of the content added is the neutral tone and accurate reflection of the contents of the articles referenced.
 * The content added can be improved by being cited more, by the sections being reflected in the lead, and by adding another section "Reception" on how the book was experienced by readers and other academics in the field and possible rejections on the contents of the book.