User:Hana.irwin/Echo chamber (media)/Zalata42 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hana - @Hana.irwin


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * 


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Echo chamber (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.)

Hello Hana, I am going to do a peer review of your assigned article, enjoy the read!

Lead


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - The Lead of the article has been updated with the brief description on how social media is affected by echo chambers.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - The Lead is concise and is not overly detailed.

Content


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - The content added regarding the general overview of homophily and recommender systems are perfectly relevant. the example of Facebook algorithms in the homophily subsection I thought gave a great visualizer as to what the general topic was about, and it relates to echo chambers. Adding the section on recommender systems I thought was also relevant & enhanced the overall article. It is worth considering whether recommender systems are too similar to the concept of filter bubbles or if they are distinct enough to have their own subsections, but I think it is good to have these subsections as they are.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - The majority of the sources are either up-to-date, or relatively up-to-date (articles from the 2000s). 4 sources came from the 1990s, but I wouldn't consider these sources from the article to show outdated information that require update. It is all good there.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - All information here is relevant.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - I think this can have an example where more representation can be used. A source I found from the article social polarization discusses how "during the Arab Spring uprisings, it was observed that social media furthered the social stratification already present in several Arab states. I suggest you have the Arab Spring among your examples of echo chambers and how that has divided people to various different groups. This article can help as well with a very brief description of such echo chamber taking place. You can use either articles as examples. Or, you don't need to restrict yourself with my Arab Spring example. If you have another clearer example, then you can use that!

Tone & Balance


 * Is the content added neutral? - There appears to be no bias with the wordings, especially the examples. I didn't perceive the examples making me lean towards a particular side.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - As mentioned, the examples appear to have an overrepresentation of Western examples. (see equity gaps section).
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? - No.

Sources & References


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - Yes, all new content is backed up by reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources current? - Mostly yes (see content section).
 * 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.) - The vast majority of sources come from articles, which is a sign of a strongly backed up article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - They do.

Organization


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - The article is easy to read, but there can be slight spelling tweaks, particularly "globalization" vs "globalisation" spellings. I think spelling can be more consistent throughout the article. Another improvement can come in the recommender system subsection, where I am unsure if the second paragraph is relevant to the subsection in hand. If it is relevant? Then keep it.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - (Check above question)
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Yes, everything is broken down to sections.

Images & Media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - The article included relevant images that enhances the overall understanding of the topic.
 * Are images well-captioned? - Yes they are.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? - Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? - Yes, I thought the images included in the article were informative & enhanced the overall read.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - The content added has enhanced the article with clearer detail.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - It made me understand what homophily and recommender systems were, and the 2016 Presidential Election example was an example that was easy to grasp for the general reader.
 * How can the content added be improved? - If possible, have at least 1 general example that isn't from the West, just to have more diversity in examples. More spelling consistencies. Check the Organization section I wrote for slight tweaks, and it should all be good.

''' General comments. ''' - You seem to be well on track in the assignment. You already got the right amount of words (600+ words) and references added (it says you got 6 references). I think all should be good just with an example outside of the more common Western examples for your topic, and just slight spelling tweaks for more consistency. Good luck!

- Zaid