User:Ljc22b/Low culture/Schwammy1 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
Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has not yet been updated to reflect the new content that has been added to the sandbox. However, I can tell this group is still working on their lead section as they have already added a new sentence to the original article's lead and removed a few other sentences. So far it's a strong lead from what is written, but definitely should be expanded on once the group finishes finalizing the topics and points that will be being brought up in the article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Although I think the introductory sentence is an effective sentence I would suggest starting out with a simpler definition sentence so that the reader can grasp a good understanding of the concept. I do still believe that the sentence that is in there now should come immediately after this new formed, simpler defined sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does not at the moment, but I think this group is still working on this portion of the lead section as they appear to still be finalizing all of their subsequent sections for their article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No it does not. All of the information being brought to the reader's attention in the lead section is information that is in the article. However, one suggestion I may have is potentially adding a sociology section separate from how the concept is identified in media, since your introductory sentence defines the term in means of sociology.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is very concise right now but I think the group is still expanding and working on their lead section. The writing so far is very concise but detailed so this group should definitely keep the same work flow when continuing to work on this lead section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, I really enjoyed seeing the selections of topics that this group decided to add to improve this article. I feel like the sections they have chosen are perfect descriptors of the main concept of low culture and definitely has the potential to allow them to improve the original Wiki article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * I didn't notice any specific dates referenced in their draft so far, but their references section does appear to have a source from 2020. I do suggest finding more references that are a little more up to date and more accurate to information as close to present day as possible.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, as stated earlier this group has done a good job at selecting the sections that this article needed to be added to be more successful. Although the majority of the content isn't yet written, the way this group has laid out their sections will allow them to add in their information seamlessly and effectively.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * No it does not. However, if this group can find a source that addresses these topics I think it can be quite useful, so I do recommend researching to see if there is one that exists.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * There isn't an overly abundant amount of content in their draft yet, but from what is there so far, all information seems to be neutral and does not express any forms of bias.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, not at all. Great job just simply explaining concepts and not favoring any positions so far.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No there is no attempts at any sort of persuasion in this groups draft.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes it is.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * I am unable to answer this question because the group has not yet cited information within the content added in their sandbox draft. Additionally, when clicking on the linked source, it does not let me view the full text, as it only allows mw to see the abstract of the piece.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Again, I am unable to answer this question due to the reasons in the previous question.
 * Are the sources current?
 * There is only one source added at the moment from 2020. Although this is relatively recent, I would definitely recommend aiming to find information a little more recent.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * I view the source's content to see how diverse the authors are, but there is two of them in the article listed under their references. Thus, I believe it is fair to assume that the article is likely diverse in the sense that two authors are collaborating on their views.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * One source that I found on Google Scholar and recommend checking out is "Brett Easton Ellis's Controversial Fiction: Writing Between High and Low Culture".
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All links in the sandbox do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, even though it appears that this group just added small thesis's for the sections they've started in the writing so fsr is concise, clear, and easy to read. The only suggestion I have is to make sure to expand on all of the topics being brought up in the thesis of each section and subsection.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are some grammatical errors in the "Audience" subsection of the "Mass Media" section so be sure to take another look at this section before adding more content to it. There is also a few minor ones in the "Culture as Social Class", but the mistakes in each of these sections are very small. Other than cleaning up these small errors this group has dine a good job writing so far.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, I think this group's organization is the best aspect being brought to this article so far. They have added a ton of more relevant and interesting sections that relate to the topic and they have organized and assembled the categories and subcategories in a very cohesive manner that will flow well.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * This group has not added any media to the sandbox yet. However, there is one image in the original article that provides a humorous, comic-like demonstration of low culture. I do recommend adding a more of these, or even just more recent ones, but also adding some graphs or diagrams that break down the concept well in a simple image.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * This group has not added any media to the sandbox yet. However, the caption for the one image in the original article can be condensed into a smaller, concise caption.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * The one in the original article does, but there aren't any new images that have been added to this groups sandbox drat yet
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Again, there aren't any images in the sandbox yet, but I think images can be laid out more strategically in the original article when the group does get to this step of their writing.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, even though it is just brief thesis statements of the information that will be added in the coming weeks, you can easily tell that this group is on the right track in terms of the information being added to enhance the overall quality of the original article. There is a lot of room for this group to improve the original article, so I am looking forward to seeing the content being added to this piece.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strength of this sandbox draft as of right now is the very well organized format and placement of topics and subtopics. The placement of their content will allow for a seamless flow and transition as each topic and subtopic coincide well with one another.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The one big suggestion that I have for improvement in this article is making sure to reference more source's in your writing and to include a more diverse range of sources to allow you to accomplish this. This will also allow for you to add more content and further elaborate on the concepts and topics you are explaining in each heading and subheading. Other than that, great job and amazing start to your writing. I'm excited to see how the final daft tutns out!