User:Charkings/Propaganda film/Deanapol Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Charkings
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Propaganda film

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The edited lead by the peer in their sandbox is significantly better than the one that is found in the original wikipedia page.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes it does describe the topic clearly, and the additional edits the peer added in their sandbox for the lead are good.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead in the article is not reflective of the articles major sections. The sections of the article dont make sense to me, I dont understand the point of this wikipedia page.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes and no, the article is nothing that I except to be about propaganda film because the page needs a history portion but there is a separate page for that for some reason. So the lead seems like it will define and explain propaganda film, talk about the different types, and what effect they have.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is a little overly detailed, it quotes someone about the effect of propaganda films which seems unnecessary for the lead.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the edits that the peer has in their sandbox is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I believe that the sources are up-to-date and the best for the topic.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The topic/section for "Demagoguery" seems incomplete in the sandbox.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * there are certain phrases in the wiki page that are not neutral and I think the peer can change it to make it neutral . For example this sentence says "unique" which is opinionated: "Film is a unique medium that reproduces images, movement, and sound in a lifelike manner as it fuses meaning with evolvement as time passes in the story depicted."
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no heavily biased sections, it seems that there are only a few phrases that are subjective rather than objective.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think that there should be a section for the different types of propaganda films, and maybe a section for all propaganda films out there as well.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No it does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The sources the peer added in their sandbox appears to be reliable. I see a journal article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * They do seem thorough, but I think the fact that there are multiple propaganda film pages it takes away a lot of the work the peer can do/include.
 * Are the sources current?
 * I think they are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 *  #1 link does not link me to an article. It leads to a featured page and not the source that is quoted. 

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the edits in the sandbox are concise and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * In the sentence I copied in "Tone and Balance" there is a spelling errors, "evolvement" instead of "involvement".
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * No the article is not well organized; this is not the fault of the peer. I think that because there multiple pages it seems confusing on what they can and cannot contribute to the page. I think they can structure it a little better however.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The peer has made good edits in their sandbox and they are good edits to the page; I believe that they can add to the pages grammar mistakes and fix the structure of the page.