User:Efs20/Effects of violence in mass media/Mcartano Peer Review

General info
Efs20
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Efs20/Effects_of_violence_in_mass_media?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Effects of violence in mass media

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.)

Peer review

No content has been added to the sandbox.

Lead
Guiding questions:

Unable to thoroughly answer the following questions since there is no lead.


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No lead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No lead
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No lead
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No lead
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? No lead

Content
Unable to thoroughly answer the following questions as there has been no content added.

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? No content
 * Is the content added up-to-date? No content
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance
Unable to thoroughly answer the following questions as there has been no content added.

Guiding questions:


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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No new content
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) No content
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No sources
 * Are the sources current? No sources
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No sources
 * 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.) Yes, there have been studies conducted regarding the effects of violence in the media.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No links

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No content
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No content
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? No content

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

Did not add images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
 * Are images well-captioned? No images
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No images
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No images

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

Article already exists and is not new


 * 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? No
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Nothing to reference
 * How can the content added be improved? You could find a source for number 4 in the "Responses to Criticism" as it has not yet been cited. You could also correct the typo in the caption for the Two-Step Flow Theory image. There is also no citation for the section on Pluto. I think there is more that could be included in that section in general.