User:Clmoody1/Parasocial relationships/Chrissusskin 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? Clmoody1 (v.2)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Clmoody1/Parasocial relationships

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead does reference the focus of the article being Parasocial Relationships. It does have an introductory sentence, but I do not believe it is concise and/or clear. I had to read it multiple times and I'm still not sure I could expect a general person reading it to understand it easily on the first pass. There may be an opportunity to tighten up the Lead section by moving some of the more detailed information to another section of the article to keep the lead section concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The majority of the articles are consistent in the messaging of parasocial relationships in media, whether fictional or non fiction. The majority of the articles were published in the last 2 years, so the content is fresh. I'm not sure there is anything that doesn't belong, but it does seem repetitive in the different sections. There are times where information is presented in the Lead and then multiple times in the content section.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Without reading all of the referenced articles, I would be curious as to the bias of the published works. There are sentences like "A media users’ bond with media personas can lead to higher self-confidence, a stronger perception of problem focused coping strategies, and a stronger sense of belonging". Sentences like this, on the outside looking in, could seem biased as this is not necessarily an objective statement unless they have found ways to measure things such as "self-confidence, coping strategies, and sense of belonging".

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The links throughout the article to the references work. The references are from what appear to be the proper type of articles from the appropriate sources. 60% of the articles are within the last 2 years making the majority of the information extremely current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
Most of the content is free of grammatical errors, though there are a few throughout. I think overall the content covers a lot of information, but I am not sure it covers it in a way that the general reader would easily understand. I am not sure if the word count was important, but much of this information could be cut down and simplified while still keeping the important background information in tact. A good example is this sentence: "n 1956, T.M. Newcomb's (1956) reinforcement theory explained that following a rewarding interaction an attraction is formed. A gratifying relationship is formed as a result of social attraction and interactive environments created by the media persona." Though the information could be useful in creating an overall picture of this subject, this sentence sounds very academic and not necessarily digestible for the general public.

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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images.

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?

New Article Evaluation
I think this article has very good potential to be a very informative published work on Wiki. There are some great connections throughout to other articles and good references that can really help build a great article for the community. There may need to be a different naming convention for the different sections that are less exact and more like other articles. May want to research other articles to see more broad section titles.

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
Overall, I believe this article is extremely informative and interesting as a read. I think with some edits, and simplifying the information, this article can be a great asset to anyone studying parasocial relationships.

~