User:Mazariegos lorena/Political communication/Tigran Abrahamyan Yotes Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Mazariegos lorena


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mazariegos%20lorena/Political_communication?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Political communication

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead


 * The lead provides a clear and concise introductory sentence describing the article's topic.
 * The lead offers a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Some information in the lead appears to be missing from the article. However, I think that the lead is general enough and contains enough information.
 * The lead is concise and avoids being overly detailed.

Content


 * The content added is relevant to the topic and up-to-date.
 * No significant content appears to be missing or misplaced.
 * The article does not specifically address Wikipedia's equity gaps or underrepresented topics.
 * Consider discussing the cultural and historical significance of hippodromes in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as their influence on modern sporting venues, rather than a historical definition.

Tone and Balance

Overall, the content added maintains a neutral tone. No claims appear heavily biased toward a particular position. No viewpoints appear overrepresented or underrepresented. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another.

Sources


 * Most of the content is backed up by reliable secondary sources. However, I'm not sure if the second reference is scholarly. I believe it was a blog post.
 * The content accurately reflects what the cited sources say (checked several sources).
 * I would say that the sources are thorough and current.
 * The sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Most links provided are functional and relevant except the first one. I don't have access to that one. Not sure why.

Organization


 * The content added is well-written, concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * No grammatical or spelling errors were found. However, some sentences might need to be re-written. I'm not sure how to describe it but it felt like an essay in some sentences rather than an encyclopedia.
 * The body could be broken into more parts. I would include some sections into cultural impact, history, etc.

Images


 * The article does not contain any new images or media. Consider adding images or media related to ancient hippodromes or modern horse-racing tracks to enrich the article visually and provide more context to readers.

Overall?


 * It's a really good draft. It improves the original article a lot. Just minor stuff that needs changing.