User:Natdogmillionaire/Word of mouth/CAPam30 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Natdogmillionaire


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Natdogmillionaire/Word_of_mouth&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Word of mouth

Lead
I think the lead does a good job of incorporating all the primary aspects of the article into it, as well as laying out a general framework for the structure of the article. You would need to add to the lead section some material about the two new sections you will be adding, but overall the lead section is in good shape.

Content
Your content does a good job of making the whole article more up to date, particularly with the addition of the social media component. It's all relevant and well-fitting to the topic of the article. In the social media section however, I would remove the part about social media not being word-of-mouth itself, and just leave the latter part of the sentence about how it is a tool that it spreads.

Tone
The tone is good, there's not really much to say about tone because the topic is neutral anyway. You also do a good job of leaving out any biases or persuasive language.

Organization
The overall organization of the main article is pretty straightforward, so there's not much you would need to do or adjust. The one thing I would add though, is if you were to keep the information about how social media is debated as a tool vs real word of mouth, you could put that under a bottom section titled something like "tools of word of mouth" or "mechanisms" or something along those lines. It's fairly straightforward and direct also, with no grammatical errors.

Overall Impressions
Overall I think the material you have to add to the article is quality, reliable, and well written information. I would suggest either removing the comments about the debate of social media being a tool/mechanism, and leave the organization as is, OR, leave that information and create a new section about tools and methods, etc. Overall though, very nice work.