User:ChanThaMan/Audience reception/Jennabumpurs Peer Review

General info
ChanThaMan
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:ChanThaMan/Audience reception
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Audience Receptiom

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.)

I Immediately noticed that this user did a good job of having titles and subtitles that made his article easier to follow. The author jumped into the article with the "orgins" topic. I did notice how there is no "summary" part to this article. There is a small paragraph at the beginning talking about what audience reception is, but the paragraph is a tad wordy and could be more straightforward about this topic. I feel like if the content is up to date. The encoding/decoding section could potentially have more clarity. Although the content is neutral, I think it would benefit from more detail. The author did add reliable sources, and has a good quantity of them. I feel as if the "audience analysis" section is a strong section with good information. There are a few grammatical errors, and a few times the author gets kind of wordy in his choices. Overall, I think the paper is going in a good direction. My best advice would be to read through it a few more times to clean it up a little bit, add a stronger "summary" section, and maybe find a way to end the paper with a good conclusion that ties everything together!