User:Mbjordahl/Social aspects of television/Nbernal2020 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? (Vadams1996)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Social aspects of television

Lead
Guiding question

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Lead is the same


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, was left the same.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Lead provides a brief description of the social aspects of television, but not a direct description of the major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's pretty straight to the point, nothing super detailed, and has just a brief description (not much is needed).

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * 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 (just adds information relevant to the topic, not in anyway trying to convince or lead in one direction).

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (DIDN'T ADD IMAGES)


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/A
 * Are images well-captioned? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

For New Articles Only
'''If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. (NOT A NEW ARTICLE)'''


 * 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 was added definitely helps pull together the article, and also just adds some really nice relevant information.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Adds more to what was already being discussed in the article before any edits were even made.
 * How can the content added be improved? Pull from more sources. I think that the more sources that you can pull information from the better because this is about technology and there are so many sources out there on this topic.