User:BrettGyd57/News propaganda/BradenHeath Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

BrettGyd57


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrettGyd57/News_propaganda?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * News propaganda

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, the lead has been updated and includes new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory sentence does a good job describing what the article is about, as it gives a basic definition of what news propaganda is.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The last paragraph of the whole introductory section talks about the main sections of the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? The lead section is nearly half of the entire article, and it does include information not talked about or touched on later in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise in certain parts, explaining what news propaganda is, but it is overly detailed in various other aspects as it includes lots of ideas that could be incorporated throughout the article instead of stated in the lead section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added was at the end of the lead section, and it was relevant as it gives an American philosopher's perspective on propaganda.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content added was from 2015, so it is somewhat up to date as it was within the last 10 years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? There is not any content within the bulk of the article, but it was mentioned that there were going to be more sections added.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? As of right now, the article does not deal with any equity gaps, but there is a good opportunity to as it deals with propaganda in the news. This could be included in another section to the main body of this article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the part added in the lead is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I think all the claims are unbiased as it offers explanations of different types of areas one can find news propaganda.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the article itself is very underrepresented in many aspects. The majority of the article outside the lead focuses on areas you can find propaganda, rather than giving any historical examples or further detail about news propaganda.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added does is not persuasive in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Yes, the content matches the information in the source.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The source is thorough enough to give this article from information of the content added.
 * Are the sources current? The source was from 2015, so it was decently current as in the last 10 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is only one new source added.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) There are various other sources that I came across that can be included in the sections of the article as it stands, along with other sources which would help in the addition of new sections.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The link works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content added is clear and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? A comma should be added after "...Yale University".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is good for the lead section, however, I think it would make more sense to include it in one of the first paragraphs as it provides a definition of propaganda.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images in the article
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? I think the added sentence in the lead improves the lead, but more information needs to be added throughout the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added provides a different perspective of what propaganda is.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content added is fine, but I think more needs to be added throughout the body of the article, as there are a multitude of topics and sections that can be added in.