User:Croxrys/Media bias in the United States/GuugWiki Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the changes haven't been made
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, but there could be a little more clarity and specificity.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It's concise, but could potentially use some cleaning-up

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes, the areas identified could use a good bit of work
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, the purpose of the change is to update data.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Where there is content missing, the draft would seek to fill in the gaps.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I would say so, it adds more to a section on gender bias in media, and the section there is severely lacking.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There could probably be more, but the ones that are there are very solid
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Not particularly, but there are only two for the suggested changes so far.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Not much, one is peer reviewed and the other is a well established polling organization.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The link to the peer reviewed article doesn't, but the other does.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It could use some cleaning up, but overall gets the point across well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * It does have a small amount of grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the sections which would be added are very clear

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The article only contains a handful of images, and all of them are graphs
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
 * yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * There are over 200 sources, but there's always more that could be added, particularly in the areeas the draft identifies.
 * 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?
 * Yes it does.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, definitely
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It is more up to date and fills an equity gap
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It just needs to be cleaned up (and the quotes need to be summarized).

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Croxrys


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Croxrys/Media bias in the United States


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Media bias in the United States

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.)