User:BradenHeath/Geography of media and communication/Kylerstrickler Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BradenHeath


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BradenHeath/Geography_of_media_and_communication?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Geography of media and communication

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead changes that Braden made were very solid and makes the lead on the current version of the article make much more sense. It is more all-encompassing of the information that was presented in the whole page. The author found a way to incorporate the information that he added into the lead and still have it make sense, adding a sentence to more match the chronology of the article if it was to be changed. The lead was already pretty good, so most of the guiding questions can be answered with a "yes". Perhaps there are a few changes that could be made, but the author made the changes that needed to be made in reference to what he was planning to add to the page.

The most important part of this peer review is the content section, because Braden added an entire new section with new sources for his draft. This section was titled "Differences in Geographical Communication Over Time", which you could probably pull if you were only to read the sentence he added to the lead, which is a good indicator of a solid lead. Due to the nature of the content added, there is almost no way that it cannot be up-to-date, because the paragraph is about how this practice has changed over time up until the modern day. I will get into it more later, but the sources check out, so it is up-to-date. One small suggestion I could have is that the title of this section maybe should be changed to "Evolution of Geographic Communication," which still encompasses the information in the lead but is maybe a more concise title. As for the relevance of this information to the overall article, I would say it is very relevant. Not only is the information that the author wants to add relevant, but it is also diverse in the way that it talks about different countries and different situations. Maybe something that could be added would be the discussion of a different social media than Twitter to diversify this information, but it is still solid. Overall, this section is great, if not a little long.

The author could probably break this into two separate sections with different sub-headings to make the organization a little better. There is a lot of information in one section, and while it all relates to each other, there should probably be sub-sections or a break of some sort. Other than that, the grammar conventions and everything else is fine, there is no other organizational problems.

As for the tone and balance of the changes, I think that the author did a good job of adding information that was balanced and effective, but maybe the presentation of this information could be altered a little bit. Some sentences like "this is evident" and "while... it has been shown" make it seem like the author is maybe taking a side, even if there is not specific "sides" to be argued for that information. So, the author is staying balanced, but should change the way he organizes his sentences to make it seem less like he is taking a side.

As for the sources, they are solid and academic. Maybe some of them are a little outdated and do not match the "current" tone that the information takes on, but overall the information is relevant and matches up with what one would logically assume. I would have liked to see a few more 2020-2022 sources, but overall this topic does not have hundreds or even tens of good articles produced on it per year. So, because the sources are academic and unbiased, I would say they do a solid job.