User:Dimsumyo/Agenda-setting theory/Lynnpj29 Peer Review

General info
Dimsumyo
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Dimsumyo/Agenda-setting theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Agenda-setting theory

Lead
The lead has a lot of strong information and clearly describes agenda-setting theory, however it may be overly detailed. Consider moving some of the content into other sections or streamlining. The lead could also benefit from paragraph breaks.

Content
This is a very concise summary of agenda-setting theory. The dedicated Social Media section is a nice addition. Perhaps reintroduce some of the sections from the original Wikipedia article, as it seems quite a bit was cut; for example, the section on framing might be helpful.

Tone and Balance
The content is neutral in tone and doesn’t appear to be biased. Discussing the evolution of agenda-setting theory over the years provides balance in the article.

Sources and References
All the sections have citations. Nice job adding more current resources. Some of the references have information errors like so consider checking those. Also, consider adding some of the references from the original article to give an even wider range of content.

Organization
The content is well-written and concise. Perhaps rename Additional Research to something like Modern-day Applications. Additional Research and Conclusive Research seem like vague subheads.

Some small edits:


 * The evolution of agenda-setting and laissez-faire components of communication research encouraged a fast pace growth and expansion of these perspectives. (fast-paced)
 * Beyond just emphasizing items, media messages regarding societal problems and other things also include descriptions of such things. (consider rewriting this)

Images and Media
The article does not include any images (and neither does the original). Consider adding one or two to help illustrate the concepts.

Overall impressions
Overall, this is certainly a quicker and easier read than the original article. Perhaps layering back in some of the original content can help improve the article as a robust source of information. Nice work!