User:Ktdav/Parasocial relationships/Road2tip 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? Ktdav
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Parasocial relationship

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the introductory statement is clear and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead gives an overall description of the articles major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information in the lead is in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content in the article is relevant and informative.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Based on the references used, the content of the article is a healthy mix of recent information and historical information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the information in the article is focused on parasocial relationships, there may be an opportunity to elaborate more on the meaning of parasocial breakups.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? The article does not deal with equity gaps. However, I am not sure how relevant equity gaps are for this topic. If any existing studies exist on parasocial relationships by ethnicity/race that might be relevant. Information can also be added on the differences between how men and women approach parasocial relationships. There is a reference to women being more prone to parasocial relationships in the article, but a citation is needed to confirm accuracy.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The information in the article does not appear biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Viewpoints on how women approach parasocial relationships is underrepresented, is there more content that has been published about this? I also wonder if there is content on how children view parasocial relationships. I think the media references in the article are appropriately represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I do not feel the content added to this article is persuasive. The author did a good job with staying neutral in their assessment.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, new content has reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, sources appropriately reflect the topic.
 * Are the sources current? 3/5 sources are current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? There is mild diversity in the authors that created the sources used in this article.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is relatively easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? The content has limited grammatical errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the content is well organized.

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

Choi, A. (2017, April 05). The Parasocial Phenomenon. Retrieved October 12, 2020, from https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/parasocial-relationships/
 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No images are included in the article. (FYI, there's an image in this PBS article (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/parasocial-relationships/) that I think might be helpful (Choi, 2017). Showing an image similar to this shows the dynamic of parasocial relationships)
 * Are images well-captioned? Not applicable, no images are included in the article.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Not applicable, no images are included in the article.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Not applicable, no images are included in the article.

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? Yes, the content added has improved the flow of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strength of the content added is improved grammar, and more thorough information on the types of parasocial relationships.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content can be improved by discussing more about different types of theoretical connections related to parasocial relationships. I also think it may be helpful to add some pictures related to fictional relationships (i.e., book cover, movie cover, etc.).