User:Emilyfontana/Vlog/EmilyLSmall 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? (Emilyfontana)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Emilyfontana/Vlog

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
There has been no lead written for the version that I am reviewing. The lead that the original vlog Wikipedia page is really choppy and does not flow nicely, maybe rewording that could help to benefit the article.

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
There has been some content added to the section on personal vlogs that is relevant and updated to reflect changes. There has also been some citations added into the section on history that help to legitimize the information that was originally posted in the first article.

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
The tone remains neutral and factual in the information that has been provided. The information that is provided seems like it is in favour of the use of vlogs and explains what technical functions and types there are. I might suggest adding a section maybe on controversial vlogs if you wanted to, you could talk about the Logan Paul suicide forest vlog for example and how showing so much of your life can be damaging to your well-being and relationships. As someone who loves watching vlogs I know some YouTubers mention that it can be damaging to their social lives, if you could find some sources on this it might be a good section to add into the page.

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
All of the additional content has reliable sources that reflect the literature on the topic. The links that are provided also work.

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
Content that has been added is well-organized and well-written. The sentences flow nicely together and are a great start on expanding what is on the page already.

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 has not been an image added to the page yet.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
The content that has been added so far has improved the content of the article, by giving citations the statements that were made are now legitimized. As you add more content keep up this same effort to cite information and keep using the style of article that you are using because I think it relates strongly to the type of material that you will be adding. Overall, this is a really great start to your Wikipedia contribution!