User:Maxack37/Social media and political communication in the United States/Adamng926 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)
 * Maxack37
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Maxack37/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the Lead has not been updated, though my peer has added content onto the third paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead includes an introductory sentence, roughly describing the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead largely includes brief descriptions on the article's major sections, but does not discuss the negative aspects such as scandals that appear later on in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information not present in the article and encompasses much of the same ideas written throughout.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is extremely detailed about the changing nature of social media and could potentially be written shorter. The extra information could be turned into another section.

Lead evaluation:
The Lead was extremely specific and relevant to the topic, though it was not concise. However, it was beneficial to give an overview to what social media and political communication in the US entailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content added is relevant to the topic, as much of the information added was within sections and expanded on topics such as scandals, the 2012 presidential election, and the 2008 presidential election.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No, not all of the content was up-to-date (some being from 2012)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is no content that is missing or does not belong. All content was relevant.

Content evaluation:
The content was specific and relevant, and much statistics and factual information were added alongside paragraphs already written within sections, and as a result, much of the information was useful, though the sources were not correctly cited and could have been more recent.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added was neutral and purely factual, adding information that was unbiased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No claims were heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No viewpoints were overrepresented, as all the information purely stated factual information adding onto what was already written.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the entire article does not expand much on different positions.

Tone and balance evaluation:
I thought that all content was extremely neutral, though I would add in that viewpoints on social media and political communication could have been added in. Much of the information is very factual and useful to be properly added.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All new content was backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources were thorough, reflecting on much of the statistics, though some of the sources may have been biased that were written from blogs.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are not all current, with some coming from 2009 and some coming from 2013.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links work, though they were not properly cited.

Sources and references evaluation:
There were a sufficient amount of sources that were thorough, though I felt more sources could have been used to provide even more information into the content that was written. In addition, not all the sources were current, and I would suggest that the sources come more-so from publications and research rather than from articles that may not be the most credible.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written and concise. It is also specific with information coming from trusted data.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content does not consist of 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?
 * The content is well-organized, largely because the sections have already been made and the user is adding onto the section to provide more information.

Organization evaluation
Overall, the content was well-written, though I would look to add a section on something other than the scandals and the elections. I believe that there is more to social media and political communication, and not only primary elections, but there could be more case studies that can be written specifically in certain areas that I feel could be added in as well.

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?

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?

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, I thought the content was great and added much information to the article. However, one thing I would focus in on is finding more trusted sources that have been proven to be correct, since many of the sources are taken from websites that may not be completely reliable. Nonetheless, I thought the user did a great job implementing statistics to back up much of the information and claims that were stated.