User:Kyle.chan201/Social media use in politics/Brandonqin 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: Kyle.chan201
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Kyle.chan201/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * 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?

Lead evaluation
The lead is updated to accurately reflect the new content drafted, as the entire article describes social media use in politics, and that is exactly what you are contributing. It does concisely give an introduction to the topic, however improving its description of the article's major sections might be beneficial because currently it doesn't mention all sections like role in conflict. The lead doesn't bring up any information not present, but it does list a rather long list of platforms that aren't all mentioned, so maybe cutting down there as an edit for the article could help.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic as it mentions examples like Facebook as a social media platform affecting politics and elections, like the one in 2016 and 2018. It is up to date as well, as when talking about recent elections, it has many mentions of current political figures like Hillary Clinton and the impact on the youth vote as well. There is not much content that is missing, would only mention that if you mention political figures, it would be beneficial to balance it out on both conservative and liberal sides.This article doesn't directly related to underrepresented populations, but as it pertains to voting and social media, there are many ways this can tangentially impact populations that need more information or education.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content is netural, and there doesn't seem to be any glaring biased claims. The only balance issue I would mention is making sure that examples are balanced. I see that you mention both Trump and Hillary Clinton which is good, but you do mention Facebook as well. It might be interesting to even dive into far-right platforms to see their impact on voting behavior, as I'm sure there is definitely things to write about there. Overall, I think the tone is well written, and doesn't seem to be opinionated or persuasive. If needed, it might be good to double check on words like "huge" or "great" to make sure that adjectives aren't adding any emotional tones, but I think there weren't any apparent issues.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All the content was backed up by a reliable source, and are thorough as well. They also are current as they touch upon many recent elections and political issues, which is great as we add to the existing article. There is a diversity in the sources selected, however, there is no direct inclusion of marginalized individuals, so potentially looking there may be another addition. The links work as well and are cited in-line appropriately.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The content is well written with concise and clear points. There doesn't seem to be any major grammar or spelling issues and the organization flows well throughout the draft. The only addition I would add here would be potentially adding more headers to signal to readers a main topic in each paragraph or two paragraphs, but if it doesn't make sense to do so, then this is fine as well.

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
Overall, definitely a very solid draft. The only things I would keep in mind going into a second draft, double checking balance in examples given, exploring a far-right platform as an example, adding more headers as signposts. Other than that, I think there is great information, with strong sources to back it up. Hope this helps and excited to see the finished product of this article, great topic and draft!