User:Jorge Guerrero E/Social media use in politics/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? Jorge Guerrero E
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jorge Guerrero E/Social media use in politics

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes it was updated. However it barely gave any detail as to what is happening and why they chose to do these sections.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead did include an introductory sentence, however, it lacked detail.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes it included a brief description. However more could have been added to describe the changes Jorge was conducting. I felt that more should be added as it barely gives any detail.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * It told us that this information would be underneath the section of "background" which he didn't mention in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I found that it barely had any details, it definitely needs to be edited! Contribute more so the reader can get a brief, clear, and concise understanding of what the article will be all about.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic and complements the section it is under.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I found most of the content to be up-to-date and relevant to the overall article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * "Among the different social media sites that exist, the most popular site is Facebook which differentiates from Twitter and Instagram by allowing users’ to establish a page that differs from parody profiles by providing a special format on the profile page (Jorge, 2020)."
 * I found this shouldn't be added or should be removed. Yes Facebook may be more popular but all candidates use the other platforms. This creates a bias that Facebook is better!

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Most of the information is neutral towards the topics and sections. I found he wasn't putting his opinion in the article, instead offering more information/fact based writing.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes! This sentence: "Among the different social media sites that exist, the most popular site is Facebook which differentiates from Twitter and Instagram by allowing users’ to establish a page that differs from parody profiles by providing a special format on the profile page (Jorge, 2020)." Claims Facebook is more popular and better than other platforms.
 * This is creating a bias towards the other platforms suggesting that they aren't as superior.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I found the viewpoints to be underrepresented more details could have been added such as the role of instagram and Facebook in current elections, discuss the documentary of Cambridge Analytica, why is social media campaigns attractive to young adults?
 * Add more to the sections and build on the points that you have!
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Yes, I found that it did attempt to persuade the reader that Facebook was the superior platform. Other than that the content was very neutral!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, I found that most of the topics discusses had 2-3 secondary sources that backed it up!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I found that most of the sources did reflect to the topic and the sections. The Facebook source was one of my favourites since it was very updated and connected the articles points to the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * For the most part they were all current. There was one source that was from 1969, which I believe wouldn't accurately represent our current society in relation to these sections. Remove the 1969 source and replace it with a current source!
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, all the links I tried were working!

Sources and references evaluation
The links added to the article are great! Its is a good way to get more viewing for your article and relate it to others that connect with the topic. The one source from 1969 I would suggest removing as it is outdated. Other than that keep up the great work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I found it very easy to read! The writing was clear and concise without being too simple or lacking any details!
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, I found that there were issues with capitalization and in some areas lack of punctuation.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content overall is well-organized! Specifically, I liked that he took the topic background and broke it down into two sections that connect to the topic well. I thought that was smart since the background topic was very vague and dull. I am glad that he made the social media aspect very specific to political advertising not just a section on social media. He also described Cambridge Analytica very well and organized it to perfection.

Organization evaluation
In conclusion, spelling/grammatical errors were found but they can be fixed if you revise it! I think that the organization of the article was very good and it was very well written!

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 two images that relate to the two sections of the article.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * No I felt they were described with very little detail. I think there should have been a sentence talking about the pictures relevance to the topics. A caption is definitely needed!
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they adhere to the Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The placement of the images is good, it doesn't take away focus from the article. I find the images aren't eye catching or too interesting to be visually appealing.

Images and media evaluation
Add captions to the pictures!

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?
 * I believe that the article did meet the notability requirements. For most of the points, Jorge ensured a minimum of two sources was used!
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Yes, there were seven sources all of which had relevance to the topic!
 * 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?
 * Yes, I found the layout, placement of images, and formatting did match many articles. It did adhere to the Wikipedia standard! However, he should have made the font for the headers the same size!
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Yes it has an article link to the Cambridge Analytica article, which definitely helps his article to become more discoverable.

New Article Evaluation
Overall great article! Review the errors I pointed out and revise them!

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
Great job! This article will be contributing a lot to the overall article! I think you have added sections that have become a vital role in the topics.