User:JoelyB/Television comedy/Stephaniegrisolia 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? (provide username)
 * JoelyB
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:JoelyB/Television comedy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead was not updated to reflect the new content added by my peer. The lead still needs to be added
 * 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?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content that was added was relevant to the topic. The content was additional to pre existing content on Wikipedia as well on new content, such as impacts on society.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content added is up to date with current sources
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No content is missing and all of the content that was either revised or added is in place.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content that was added is neutral, especially when covering subjects such impacts on society and audience interpretation, which are easy to write from a bias perspective.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No the content that was added was informative, not persuasive. All of the information was adding to the readers knowledge on the subject not necessarily telling the reader what to think about it.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes all of the content is backed up by reliable sources, mostly academic journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough. Different academic journals were used for the sae subject to expand the content neutrality.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current, however one source dates back to 2006. This source is an archive of Saturday Night Live, so the information was current to that time and does not need to be updated because of its historical nature.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links provided are fully functioning.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content is very well written and I enjoyed learning about it. It was clear and made sense especially because I was unfamiliar with the topic before reading Joely's work.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * None of the content that was added has grammatical or spelling errors. It seems to be well edited with no mistakes.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized as it is broken down into headings and subheading's that enhance the reading experience.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes, the article includes an image of the cast of "I Love Lucy", which paints a picture for the reader to understand television comedy of the time.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The picture is well captioned as it describes the people by name and where they are from, which in this case is "I Love Lucy"
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Yes, the images are placed on the page so that it is visually appealing, but doesn't take away from the writing content.

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?
 * The content that was added and revised, made the article overall a better reading experience. This wasn't a topic that I was interested in before, however Joely's work made it more intriguing and kept me interested.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * A major strength to the article that Joely added was impacts to society, where audience interpretations and changing norms was discussed. These aspects are important to the subject and were not previously mentioned on Wikipedia. By adding these subjects the reader gains a better understanding on not just what the subject is, but it's significance to our world.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * N/A

Overall evaluation
I really enjoyed reading the article, it was concise, well structured and informative. I finished reading the article and learned something new.