User:Ljc22b/Low culture/Rossannm Peer Review

General info
Ljc22b
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ljc22b/Low culture
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Low culture

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

-The lead section has not been updated yet.

Content:

-the content added is relevant and up to date, and I honestly didn't feel like they are missing anything at this stage in their draft. They had a lot of information on the definition which was helpful.

-It did address topics related to historically underrepresented populations by talking about high versus low culture, specifically in how industries mass produce types of popular culture based on socio-economic class.

Tone/Balance:

-The content added is neutral and doesn't appear to have any bias towards a particular position.

-Right now, they're just defining and going into the history of these cultures, so there isn't a lot of bias that could be added honestly. I encourage them to be careful going forward into the "culture as a social class" section. It seems like towards the end it almost seemed bias with the specific meanings and usages, but they didn't get into it yet. Just be careful when you write that part to avoid bias.

-No, but see above answer ^

Sources/References:

-I might be looking at this wrong, but I don't see any other sources added besides links to other Wikipedia pages. There is a reference at the bottom, but I didn't see where it was referenced in the article. Under "definition" there is a source listed, but I don't think it is properly linked with Wikipedia. It also just contains a large block quote and summarizes it in one sentence. I feel like block quotes like that don't necessarily match the style of a Wikipedia article, so I would encourage them to consider breaking up that quote or simply summarizing it. With the Wikipedia links though, they have a lot which is really good and can help the reader to navigate their article better if they don't understand what something means. I was originally going to say that in the first paragraph it might be helpful to add in some definitions, but having the Wikipedia links in that paragraph helps a lot. The links all work, but adding more peer-reviewed sources would be helpful.

Organization:

-the content is concise, clear, and easy to read.

-the content has some spelling errors, but nothing major. It's only in some of the sections

-the content is well-organized, although I'm sure that this is just snippets in the sandbox. See what I said above about the block quote under the definition section. That was the main section where the organization could be improved.

Images/Media:

-there were no images or media.

Overall impressions:

-The content does improve the overall quality of the article. The history section especially is really detailed, and I can tell that they spent a lot of time on it. The first paragraph was also a good introduction. The one thing I would suggest adding is to consider expanding that first section to set up the content and organization better. Explain the sections that will be in the article for the reader to have a better grasp of what to expect.