User:BeeEdson224/Political economy of communications/Sbucket77 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BeeEdson224


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Political economy of communications draft


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Political economy of communications

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The updated lead provides much more useful information as well as creating a more cohesive introduction to the topic. The lead has an introductory sentence and explains what the topic is and offers a brief description of sections mentioned in the article and more so what the main idea of of PEC. I think the lead could do a slightly better job in describing more about the specific sections of the article but it does provide a broad enough section that kind of covers the other information that is included later in the article. It is concise and the way it flows all together is very nice.

Content:

It seems as if there was no new content added besides the lead paragraph. The second section titled Influences was the exact same on the other article so I am not sure if this was drafted and then actually published to the article or what. There is a lot of content in the actual article. I believe that it could be worked through and some sections could be worded differently or added to in order to help the article be more clear and concise.

Tone and Balance:

The lead section with the new information added was neutral and added a good amount of information to better the introduction to the article and the information. Since there is no other new information I can't speak about the rest of the article being neutral or having any form of bias or persuasion. The original article though seems to be neutral and just offering information about PEC.

Sources and References:

In the lead section of the drafts it looks like two citations will be added. Hopefully these citations will be reliable and either peer reviewed or a trusted and reliable source for information to help improve the article and its information. The sources already on the page have dates from more recent years like 2018 to years dating back to 1982. After reviewing these sources they come from different websites and a few peer reviewed articles and even SAGE Journals which are also a reliable source of information. The link I clicked on did work and pulled up information directly related to what was stated in the article.

Organization:

The main article is organized into different sections and has little subsections within it. It is all organized and follows a good order to stay maintained and easy to find information. The content added from the lead is very well written and makes sense. It has good flow and a vocabulary that matches the article. At this time, there doesn't seem to be any grammatical or spelling errors on the information added.

Images and Media:

No form of media or pictures were added. There also isn't really any pictures or media and I think one form of media could help apply to the article so it is more visually appealing and not just a page full of words.