User:Cartwheelin*Sun/Social media and psychology/Hanmarnel11 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Cartwheelin*Sun


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Cartwheelin*Sun/Social media and psychology


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social media and psychology

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

I don't believe the lead section was updated or edited by the user, I could not find any additional contributions or notes about the lead section. The Lead section describes the history social media but does not address some of the core topics throughout the article such as depression, suicide and it doesn't mention the correlation psychology. This section also explains the advances in online social media platforms and gives data about some of the major sites like Facebook, and how many users they have as of 2011. It doesn't go into any detail about what else is covered in the article but throughout the article, it supports the data that was put in this first section. One thing to consider in this section would be to add some general information about the other sections in the article and start to relate the use of social media to psychological impacts.

Content

The content added to this article is the section, Narcissism and social medial use , is the only additional contributions I found on this article and it was only in the sandbox, it was not included into the article. This section however is vey relevant to the article and would make a good section if added, possibly after the psychology and social media use section. The section is written nicely as it goes over some definitions in the beginning, giving some context to what narcissisms is and then going into how social media is used by narcissistic behaviors and users, and the dangers of them. It then goes onto some supportive studies and data that backs this information, overall I think the layout and content of this addition is great. The data that is included is pretty up to date (2016/2017) but there might have been more recent studies about this subject. In the article, the content seems to paint a clear picture of the story it is trying to tell. It gives a lot of information on the correlation of social media uses and the negative psychological factors that come from the use. There could have been more data added to some of the sections to buff up the content such as the needing to belong section, this is rather brief and it may benefit having more data in it, especially since it is the last section. Overall the information in the article flows and has up to date information and data.

Tone and Balance

The content added is overall pretty neutral, I think they did overall a great job only inputting the facts and sharing a non bias information giving perspective. However there isn't a lot of citations from the data they put so it could be taken in a biased way because there are no sources backing up the data. The last sentence, "Most of the studies are finding positive relationships between grandiose forms of narcissism and self-reported SM activities. However, in general, there is still variance in the results and continues studies investigating how narcissism relates to use of social media is needed" seems a little bit bias because it seems like a personal summary of the data and they used the term positive which without sources, can come off as an assumption.

Sources and References

The new content does not appear to have any sources added to the context, it is hard to tell how many sources are being referenced and how much of the data is backed up by a source. In the entire review, I think this part has the most opportunity for improvement. I did find one source in the bibliography, I tired going to the link but it was not working on my computer, I am not sure if this is an issue with the source itself or on my end. I think if more citations were added and direct links over statement words, the added content would be a lot more creditable and could support the overall article better. In the article, the sources seem to have good placements and they support the majority of the content. The hyperlinks are used cautiously and the ones that I clicked on seem to work well. The references and sources have a wide range of older articles and newer ones.

Organization

The added content is well organized, I really liked the flow of information, definition, history, context, and supporting data. The only thing that could potentially be removed is the last sentence because it feels like a summary of the section which is not needed. I could not find any grammatical errors.

Images and Media

There were no images added to this article and none to begin with. I think the use of one picture would benefit this article, maybe in the neuroscience section, images of different parts of the brain that are discussed in that section to give people a visual representation.

Overall Impressions

The added content improves the article overall although it was not added to the article that I could see. The section has a nice balance of data and history on a psychological disorder and the impacts that it has on social media and on its users. The strength of this section is the flow of the history, content and data. I think this addition is nice in the article because it gives the reader something else to think about and the article is relatively short so this would extend the content. Areas for improvement would be to take out the last summary sentence in the addition, add more citations to the section, add an image or two to the preexisting areas, and maybe add some supporting content to the lead that gives more detail about what's to come in the article.