User:Chickadee101/Mediatization (media)/Vtrevizo18 Peer Review

General info
Chickadee101
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Chickadee101/Mediatization (media)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Mediatization (media)

Evaluate the drafted changes
'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article's topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

The lead is relevant to the article's topic and an excellent brief intro to what the article entails.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims or frames that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

There is not much "new' content in the sandbox, but the writer does not present any biased content in the article. None of the references used present biased views or support all claims. In addition, the new content is also unbiased.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented?

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

There is no information that is overrepresented. However, due to the writer still working on the piece, there are sections that are missing information. I would recommend the writer focus on the LGBTQ+, Telegraph, toys/play, Newspapers, etc.

All of the references have working links and are relevant to the topics featured in the Wiki article.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

Reliable references support each fact. In addition, the information is unbiased and comes from references that are also unbiased. Most of the new references come from books and articles that can be found on the CSUF library page.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

None of the new references are out of date. In fact, most of them were published within the last five years, supporting the article with the most up-to-date information.