User:Charlisomers/Symbolic interaction/Clmoody1 Peer Review

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

Great job Charli!

'''I am guessing that Charli was adding onto the existing article so I will base my reviews off of what she has added to the article. I am not sure what order her information would be plugged into the article so I am a little confused by that. Not sure if she is rewriting or editing anything or just adding to it. Not sure what the bolding of certain parts signifies. Also below this evaluation I had already created a Q&A review based off of the Wikipedia peer review trainings if that is helpful (some of it is redundant.)'''

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Charlisomers
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Charlisomers/Symbolic interaction

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, Charli has summarized the topic in a way that would make sense to those that aren’t as familiar with Interpersonal Communication, which is helpful.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Her version seemed to be an update to the existing article, which elaborated on major theorists.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No it appears to address what the article entails.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Her lead suggestions are very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, I thought her structure of the background section was more clear than how Wikipedia laid it out and separated each theorist.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Many of the sources are from the year 2000+, which is a good indicator.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think all major sub theories and ideas are included.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Every statement is from the viewpoint of the theorist, therefore more credible.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, I do not see evidence of this.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? This is not written in an opinion based tone, but more of a scholarly reflection of the theory and facts about the theory.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, I do not see evidence of this.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I do not see any citations in her lead paragraph.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? All sources appear to be scholarly journals mostly and books.
 * Are the sources current? Yes and they are balanced throughout the article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?  I thought she did a great job improving and updating the content in a concise and easy to understand way.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, I do not see evidence of this.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I can’t really figure out what order her content would be added to the article, but I can see how they would contribute to the existing structure. I thought her structure of the background section was more clear than how Wikipedia laid it out and separated each theorist.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The picture seems to be abstract. Should perhaps be people interacting.
 * Are images well-captioned? It explains that this abstract photo is of social networks, which is helpful.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? The image is licensed under creative commons.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There is only one and it is at the top. It makes me think of a science/biology article.

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? Yes, I believe that she summarized and added to the article in a helpful way.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is more concise, understandable, and well rounded
 * How can the content added be improved? The five central ideas seem to be the exact same in her article and in Wikipedias article. I do not see any citations in her lead paragraph.

Overall evaluation 8/10
I had already done evaluations based on Wikipedia trainings so they are below in case this makes the review more well rounded.


 * 1) First,     what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that     impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear     way?

I thought Charli did an excellent job of making the article more easily understood to people of all backgrounds. She made certain aspects more concise and easier to process.


 * 1) What     changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those     changes be an improvement?

Add sources to your sentences in your lead section, this will improve credibility.


 * 1) What's     the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I thought she did a great job improving and updating the content.

A lead section that is easy to understand


 * Looking    at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of     the topic?

I feel that Charli has summarized the topic in a way that would make sense to those that aren’t as familiar with Interpersonal Communication, which is helpful.


 * Looking    at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead     reflect the most important information?

I think that it broadly covers the topic in a well rounded way that hints at the other content in the article.


 * Does    the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is     anything missing? Is anything redundant?

I think she condensed some of the lead to make it more understandable.

A clear structure

·     Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?

I can’t really figure out what order her content would be added to the article, but I can see how they would contribute to the existing structure.

I thought her structure of the background section was more clear than how Wikipedia laid it out and separated each theorist.

Balanced coverage


 * Is each    section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are     there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything     off-topic?

The five central ideas seem to be the exact same in her article and in Wikipedias article. I do not see any citations in her lead paragraph.


 * Does    the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published     literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?

Everything seems to be relevant and clearer than the Wikipedia article


 * Does    the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one     particular point of view?

No, it is very matter-of-fact and to the point.

Neutral content


 * Do you    think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the     article?

No, this article seems neutral and based on facts.


 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral?    For example, "the best idea," "most people," or     negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some     insist that y."

Every statement is from the viewpoint of the theorist, therefore more credible.


 * Does    the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For     example, "some people say..."

No, I do not see evidence of this.


 * Does    the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember,     neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the     worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various     aspects of a topic.

This is not written in an opinion based tone, but more of a scholarly reflection of the theory and facts about the theory.

Reliable sources


 * Are    most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as     textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published     authors?

All sources appear to be scholarly journals mostly and books.


 * Are    there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may     lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single     point of view.

There are a large number of sources and they all seem to balance throughout the article.


 * Are    there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you     can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source     listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!

Like I said above, her version or addition to the lead does not have any sources cited to it.

Great job Charli. Thanks~