User:Ktdav/Parasocial relationships/Theorizethis 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)
 * Ktdav's draft on Parasocial Relationships
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Ktdav/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Ktdav has updated the lead in ways that draw on the newly added information.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The intro sentence is short but concise and then expanded upon in the following sentences.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * This article draft is a revision to an already existing article and both the revised lead and the non-edited parts of the lead, which are not included in the sandbox, mention key words that are present in the following sections. Each major section is not described, however.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes, the current Wiki article does not talk about who is involved in parasocial relationships.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, Ktdav adds a lot of relevant background information to each subcategory they chose to edit. The "Bakcground" section has been expanded upon a lot to talk about the process of discovery and important concepts.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Content is up to date, and the user added more relevant and more recent sources into the bibliography.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The section on Social Media Influencers doesn't have much information that ties it back to parasocial relationships. Instead this section mostly defines what a social media influencer is. This section defines and explains social media influencers, but it isn't clear how their growth as an influencer is related to para social relationships, especially since smaller influencers grow by interacting with their audience meaning the relationship isn't one-sided. Social media influencers certainly play into parasocial relationships in some aspects, but that isn't clear in the content currently provided.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does not directly reference or speak on underrepresented populations or topics. It could potentially speak on this by introducing a section about parasocial relationships throughout the world speaking on if there are groups more likely to form parasocial relationships (like those with emotional trauma or marginalized groups) or if certain parts of the world utilize/ view the parasocial relationships differently. For instance, East Asia is known for having Idols and Idol Groups that have global followings and in home countries there are even words to describe super fans of groups. With groups like BTS gaining prominence, there might be some research on the topics coming out.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The added content is neutral, but there are a few sentences that appear to have more of a narrative purpose than informative
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not really any bias is present.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Most of the sections and information revolves around parasocial relationships occurring with real world people. Even the lead section heavily mentions the use of celebrities and social media in the rise of parasocial relationships, while parasocial relationships with fictitious characters are also important and prominent in the field of study.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content focuses on background information and what is important in those concepts, it in no ways tries to make any arguments.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Content heavy sections all have reliable secondary sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The content tends to heavily rely on only a few sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The current Wiki article doesn't have many sources, but the user has gone ahead and added a few more recent sources that make the article more current.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Sources come from a variety of authors from a variety of disciplines, with a few authors from marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Links work, however one citation is formatted incorrectly because authors are listed as et al. when they should all be listed in the source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The article's newly added content is all easy to ready and flows well.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is organized well, and the user even grouped together related sections so it makes sense going from one content point to another.

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

Peer did not add any images or media.


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
NA

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 definitely adds to the overall quality of the article. Previously there was only one big section with a few smaller ones and the user has broken down the bigger section and added background in places which brings clarity.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength are that the content broke down the big sections of the article into smaller and more in depth bite size pieces. By introducing new sections not only is the original article more clear, but it will give readers an understanding of subject matter they can look into next if they want more information.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I mentioned this above, but perhaps looking into the phenomena on a global scale such as mentioning the various phrases and uprising of super fan culture in places like East Asia where terms for super fans have been created. Looking at these terms would add more depth to the material and also introduce the non-Western take on the phenomena.