User:K09.a25/Binge watching/Chambara5 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

K09.a25


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:K09.a25/Binge_watching/Chambara5_Peer_Review?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_peer_review
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Binge-watching

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The content that is added is concise and effective in terms of adding information to the article. I appreciate that the information was added and then a small explanation was sometimes added to explain the importance of the information added. However, the lead does not include a proper introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic. It is not a long description but it does get the point of the article across efficiently. The article is quite short which could insinuate that there is not information available. The edits that user K09.a25 makes are intricate and suggest more from the initial article. I would suggesting adding the origins of binge-watching, how it has changed over the years, and maybe the normalization of binge-watching in today's society.

Clear structure:

The content added is relevant to the topic and is well organized throughout the article. I liked that user K09.a25 mentioned that "the article does not include more information about the research conducted for the information in the article". The content is not up-to-date and there should be more dates introduced to the topic in order to give the reader more background and description. I find that the article does not address topics related to historically underrepresented population or topics. The article could have included more surveys, like user K09.a25 mentioned, about the different demographics that consume binge-watching material and how it adds or subtracts to the total audience of binge-watching any content. I agree that research could be added about how much binge-watching has increased as a result of quarantine and the COVID-19 pandemic in general. It could be interesting to organize that based on age group with social media applications like Instagram, Netflix, and Tiktok.

Surveys and more modern takes are missing in the article. The article is vague, however, the subheadings and structure is acceptable.

Balanced coverage and Neutral content:

Despite the missing information, the content added is neutral and do not sway towards a specific position. It includes valuable information and examples that add to the ideas of binge-watching for the reader. However, some of the content is not too up-to-date and starts around 2016 and on-wards. It could be helpful, as said before, to add to the history of binge-watching. I agree with the user that adding different sections like advertising and binge-watching or boredom and COVID-19 contributes to the article without being biased but simply giving further context of binge-watching. It does not navigate a certain direction that drives away the reader.

Images and media:

The article does not contain enough images, it only has one. Adding more images engages the reader and caters to people who consider themselves visual learners, it is important to add more images to stimulate the reader to continue reading. The article does include many links and examples of videos like The wire and Breaking bad. The one image that is on the article is well-captioned but the image itself does not contribute to the content because it is just an image of a television screen with Netflix on it. The images do not elevate the content of the article. It is important for user K09.a25 to include more images that are of value.

Reliable sources:

The article initially contains a variation of resources. It has a total of 32 resources and is a mixture of academic journals and links for new media outlets that do add to the article but could be considered as unreliable. For example, there are links from BBC news and there are others that include the article link, "doi", that are effective to the binge-watching article. Even though the articles are cited and somewhat reliable, the entirety of the content from these links is not represented in the article. For so many article, you would expect more information to be available in the article. For example, in the "Effects on advertising section", mentions a study that was conducted and quickly jumps to the conclusion of the study. It would be useful to include the hypothesis, methodology, and then conclusion of the study in order to clarify the importance of the link being there in the first place.

Overall impressions:

Overall, the content could add more to the overall quality of the article based on the elements I have mentioned above. Adding background on studies and images could change the article and take it from expectable to exceptional. The strength that the content added by the user presents is further surveys like the Netflix survey on binge-watching as long as it is explained to the reader so they do not ask "why is this included?".

The content added could improve the understanding of the history of binge-watching and could include real situational events the influences the decrease or increase of binge-watching. The user does an excellent job at recognising the article's flaws and if they are added, it would be great to the article!