User:Ljones110/Parasocial relationships/Genmarie 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? Ljones110
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Ljones110/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
My peer created a new article rather than editing an existing one, so the content is all her addition. The definition is clear and concise, but does not include any descriptions of the articles sections. It has a few minor grammatical errors, but substantially is strong. I would like a little more information about what exactly defines the "relationships" and how that differs from just obsession. Small corrections would be relationships should not be possessive, instead the apostrophe needs to be moved to individuals, extend should be expend, persona should not have a quotation mark, and the last sentence needs a period and with should be changed to within or among.

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?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant. It has a good range of fairly modern and older studies to derive the information from. It also answers some of the questions the lead invoked within me. However, I would add more information for sure. The absorption addition portion is quite thorough, as is the Motives portion. However, the Background and Parasocial Interaction Scale portions could use a little more elaboration and information in general. I'd like to know more about the scale and if and by whom the theory has been expanded on much beyond Horton and Wohl. There is also a section without any information, which should be removed if it is deemed unneeded.

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 all neutral in my opinion. I would like to know if there are any studies that take into account the celebrity or actor points of view or effect these obsessions cause on them. Understandably, that may be difficult to find, or non-existent.

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources are all legitimate sounding, save for one that is from a website on psychology and not any kind of academic writing. There is a good range between when the sources were published as well. I checked a few of the links and they did in-fact lead me to the articles that were used.

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 article is very well written, using an academic tone that does not take any subjective voice in its descriptions of the theory. There are a few minor grammatical errors, but nothing that is more severe than slight overlooked placement. I did not see any spelling errors and the organization for what is present is well done.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added 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?

Images and media evaluation
There are no images or media for 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?

New Article Evaluation
The article does meet all requirements for sources. It has more than are necessary to create an article, actually, so the author went above and beyond in that element and ensured a good amount of research was available. It is set up like a typical article on Wikipedia, although they have bolded all of the writing (I am assuming to highlight what they have added) which is unnecessary since the article does not exist. There are no infoboxes that I notice, the links are not cited through the wikieditor the way they would be in an actual article. It also does not link to other articles.

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
The content and article itself is very interesting and the information provided is very enlightening. I would like to know more, however. Especially involving criticism to the theory. These are areas that may be hard to embellish on or find information on within the limits of this assignment however.