User:Maxack37/Social media and political communication in the United States/Mervitan 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?
 * 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 was concise and gave a good introduction to the information that was to come.

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?

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
I agree with the previous peer reviewer that the tone throughout the article did seem very neutral, which helped make your article seem more reliable.

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
Your sources were not linked or cited through the Wikipedia Cite Function which made it slightly confusing as to which article you were trying to cite. I understand that you tried to have numbers correspond with your bibliography at the end, but try to edit it to use Wikipedia's own Cite Function. However, I did enjoy the multitude of statistics that you had scattered throughout your article, which helped as you were able to back up a lot of your arguments with numbers.

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?

I was confused by the P1's and P2's that were scattered throughout your article. Were those supposed to serve as a place marker or what purpose did they have? Otherwise, I felt as though the information was organized well throughout all the headings and were relevant to the article itself.