User:EmilyLSmall/Celebrity culture/Alexandra.sanita 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? EmilyLSmall
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:EmilyLSmall/Celebrity culture

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?
 * In the beginning she added the definition of popular culture. After the definition she briefly explains why she added that and how it is relevant to her contributions.
 * She later explains her intentions for the article and new changes that will be implemented, which describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, she includes her intentions to revise and update major sections in the article (Youtube section, micro celebrity section).
 * Emily was adding relevant and updated information to strengthen the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * She created the micro celebrity section underneath the social media header, this was not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Emily's lead is clear and concise! I found it easy to read and understood what her efforts will be towards the editing and revision of the article.
 * Emily's lead is clear and concise! I found it easy to read and understood what her efforts will be towards the editing and revision of the article.

Lead evaluation
I found the lead to be short, concise, and packed with information that gave a preview to the audience on the article. I loved the introductory definition that can the readers an understanding of the topic. It was easy to read and was kept simple!

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, Emily included relevant information in her sections that related to celebrity culture.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Her information is relevant and seems up to date with current celebrity culture in our society.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I find that she didn't use any examples to relate to her topics.
 * She also didn't provide enough details the rise of micro celebrities. How did they become famous? Which platform made them viral?

Content evaluation
I think her content was well structured and broken down. I felt that she could have added examples of YouTube or micro celebrities to give readers a reference to connect too. Overall, I believe she did create a great piece and had great features to the piece such as hyperlinks.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I found the content to be neutral and was information based, not opinion based.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * I found that she leaned towards Youtube stars being very unique and claimed their authenticity in comparison to other major celebrities.
 * This in my opinions can be seen as biased since there are stars made on TikTok, instagram, snapchat, Facebook, and other platforms as well.
 * Youtube being the most unique is more of an opinion than a fact!
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I think her viewpoints on micro celebrities was underrepresented since it could have discussed how people become famous through smaller platforms.
 * Maybe add in examples of micro celebrities! (Ex: an example of a micro celebrity is this TikTok star...)
 * I believe that some of her points weren't as descriptive as they could have been towards Youtube. She should discuss how YouTube became a popular social media platform that created young influencers through an open and accessible platform.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Her section on Youtube does try to persuade you in favour of that platform having the most unique way to create influencers. It doesn't talk about other social media platforms such as instagram or tiktok.

Tone and balance evaluation
I found the overall tone to be neutral. Emily did swing in favour of YouTube being the most unique platform, which did create a bias within her piece. I would suggest if she referred to Youtube as a popular platform used by many influencers, instead of it being the most unique platform that creates young influencers. In the micro celebrities section discuss where they have started from! What platform? Why are they famous?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * I believe she used some secondary sources to back up her arguments and information. I found that her Forbes article was backed up by a great secondary source on the fame in digital culture! Which definitely contributed to her overall success of the points.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I did find that the sources reflected the topic of social media. I particularly liked her Forbes article that was updated and reflected a current viewpoint on Youtube's stars influence on millennials. This source definitely connected to social media and her sections well!
 * Are the sources current?
 * I found most of her sources to be current! The oldest source used was from 2015.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes! I clicked on a few of the links and all of them checked out!

Sources and references evaluation
Emily's sources were great! They were updated for the most part and connected to your sections very well. I did enjoy the Forbes article the most!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I agree that the content was easy for me to read. It was clear on a variety of points.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I checked for grammatical/spelling, I barely saw any errors in her sections.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Emily's work is well-organized! I liked that she broke social media down into two sections that reflected the broad topic well (Youtube, micro celebrities). In her micro celebrities section she gives a brief description/definition of the topic and links it to social media. I found that to be very good that she kept connecting it to social media.

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article was spot on. I liked the breakdown from social media to the two sections. There were little to no spelling or grammatical errors!

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, she included an image that reflects the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes, she captioned the picture and the significance it has to celebrity culture. It was brief and clear! Very well done!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, the images adhere to the copyright regulations!
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I found that she placed the image in the beginning was a great idea. This ensures it won't be left in an awkward place!

Images and media evaluation
I liked the picture Emily added to the piece! It definitely fit perfectly and complemented her sections well.

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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I found that the article was more clear, updated, and concise overall. I liked the scholarly sources used to actively tie in her sections to the article!
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Revising the Youtube section definitely adds to the success of the article. It touches upon current culture such as vlogs, tutorials, and video games, all of which are relevant to celebrity culture as many young individuals are getting famous through this. I loved the hyperlinks added to certain terms which brought up a definition for them. That helps a reader get a better understanding of the terms and connected them to similar articles.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think that she could have included a brief description as to how people become famous on YouTube. Discuss why popular applications such as YouTube has created stars that eventually become influencers. I think giving an oversight into that or providing a description of how that trend is relevant in our culture; can bring a new aspect to this article.

Overall evaluation
I think Emily did a great job! The article is more up to date, fresh, and concise. It has the perfect amount of content that gets right to the point and accurately describes the topic. Her formatting is great and follows the Wikipedia standards! I would however look into adding examples of micro celebrities or add in a hyperlink about a celebrity for readers to reference. Overall, I enjoyed reading your article and I believe this will be a great addition to the Celebrity Culture piece on Wikipedia.