User:Mcartano/Cultivation theory/Schwammy1 Peer Review

General info
Mcartano
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Mcartano/Cultivation theory
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Cultivation theory

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * It seems like this group hasn't yet updated there lead, as it appears to just link to the article that they are fixing. I'm assuming they likely haven't done this part quite yet.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The current lead for the article does appear to include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes Cultivation Theory. However, I think the sentence can get just a bit more specific about what cultivation theory is in terms of what the theory states. As of right now it gives general information about Cultivation theory being a media theory.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It does give brief descriptions for some of the topics being covered, but with new topics being added in the sandbox, the lead will likely have to be adjusted to briefly touch on the new sections that are being added in as well when the group is ready to adjust it.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, I did not notice any information in the lead that is being presented in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I believe the size of the lead at the moment is perfect. I don't think it's too cluttered with information and appears to be concise and touches briefly on certain topics that go further in depth later in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added in the sandbox so far is relevant to the topic and serve as good additions to discuss the factors of Cultivation theory. However, one thing I would recommend is to add some new information to the Perceptions of Violence section. I say this because after reading the article, I thought this section was a little thin and can be edited further. I think this is an imperative category to touch on in this article specifically.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content does appear to be relatively up to date a lot of the research I saw referenced articles from 2012 and 2018. It could be a little more recent but I believe the information here does a great job at helping explain the topics.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I don't think there is any information missing, the topics seem to flow well together and is organized in a coherent manner. One suggestion I have is maybe going more in depth as to how the Magic Bullet Theory correlates to the Cultivation Theory, as it could be perceived as extraneous information if it doesn't relate to the Cultivation Theory.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes it does. The group does have a section addressing race and ethnicity and the lead section in the article has a bit of history tied into it. One suggestion I do have is adding a little more information to the race and ethnicity section. I think elaborating on this section can be beneficial to towards the overall quality of the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes all of the information is neutral and there is no apparent bias in any of the writing that is done so far.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * As states in the previous question, I did not notice any sort of bias in any of the writing that has been done so far.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there is a good balance of information being presented in each of the sections and subsections. This group has done an exceptional job so far at making sure the writing is clean, valid, and unbiased.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No all information presented in the writing is neutral and does not express any sort of bias or persuasiveness.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * The two sources that are in this group's sandbox so far are both backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes the content does accurately cite what the sources say verbatim. As stated earlier, this group did a great job in the ways that rthey have referred to their sources so far and implementing quotes in appropriate places to reinforce their explanations of certain concepts.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources used so far are used exceptionally well and this is largely due to how good of a job this group did in selecting viable sources that connect seamlessly with the topics that they are explaining.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are relatively current. As stated previously in the content section, the sources referenced in the sandbox refer to information from 2012 and 2018.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * The first article listed in the references section of the sandbox is written by two different authors from different universities, but the second reference listed is written by just one author. However, the content in both articles are diverse.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * One additional article that I found on the FSU Library Database that I think can be helpful for this group is titles "A Critical Analysis of Cultivation Theory: Cultivation" by James W. Potter.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All of the links in the sandbox work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, this group did a good job explaining the topics of the new content that was added. They broke it down in a manner that is easy to understand and drew back on analysis to further explain their concepts.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I didn't see any noticeable grammatical or spelling errors, but one suggestion I have is to add a little more content to the sections, especially the beginning two.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The first paragraph doesn't have a section heading, so be careful with regards to where you are placing that section, but the rest is very well organized into categories and subcategories.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * This group hasn't added any media or images in the sandbox just yet. There are only two images in the article as of right now, so I definitely recommend adding more to make the page look more lively and attract more readers, since visuals tend to gain more attention. Some visual aids that I recommend are simple models and diagrams that break down the main points of the theory and a few basic graphics that help visualize the concept through the image rather than diagrams and text.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Although there aren't any images uploaded to the sandbox yet, the two images that are in the article already are well captioned. They are concise, clear, and detailed enough to grasp the information being presented in the image.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes they do.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * I think the visuals that are in the original article can be improved to have more color as it is simply just black and white diagrams and charts.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The new content that was added does improve the quality of the article and brings up a couple of new and valuable topics, but I think once they are each elaborated on further it will read as an even more complete addition that will be super helpful towards the success of the article overall.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * One strength of the new content added is the implementation of analyzing a study from the University of Connecticut and connecting it to the assigned topic of Cultivation Theory. Another strength is the addition of the Magic Bullet Theory. Although I think this can be elaborated on a little further, the potential to enhance the quality of the article by adding this section is beneficial.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think all of the new content added so far is very well written and this group has done a good job writing so far. One thing that can be improved on is implementing more of that new information and analysis to attempt to use a little less of the information that is already in the original article. Other than that I think this group did an amazing job and they are in the right track of improving this article to be very strong, solid, and reliable.