User:Guapoaaron/Two-step flow of communication/Jordonmcwilliams Peer Review

The layout of this article is good, it's easy to follow. The first section describing what the two-step flow model is was very straightforward and easy to comprehend. This is beneficial for the average reader won't have trouble defining the model. Mentioning the contrast to the hypodermic needle model as well as describing it is a strong point in this section: if someone was researching the two, this makes a clear distinction between both. Also having the other model hyperlinked is a bonus. The basic overview is extremely short. I understand it is a basic overview, but it still feels severely lacking. The biggest critique I would say would be to just add more information all around. By no means is what's there bad, it's just vague in some areas, especially the overview. There also doesn't seem to be any recent studies or research. The two published works are a nice piece of information, but they are both very dated and that area could benefit from some more recent published works. I think this article has a good start and would benefit from more information.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)