User:Pearcebarr/Friends with benefits/Ljones110 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)
 * Pearcebarr
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Pearcebarr/Friends with benefits

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

yes the lead has been updated to provide a more thorough definition


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

yes the lead's introductory is specific and easy to understand


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

There is mention of pop culture and theoretical explanation but not specifically stating them in the sections


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead doesn't talk much about the context of the article but everything that is mention in the lead is mentioned in the article


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

I feel that the lead is concise and clearly detailed, short and covers the basis of a definition

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

It seems like mostly all of the information is newly added and it pertains to the topic


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

This seems to be all new content so yes its up to date


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Theories can use more expansion but all are relevant to the article and its topic from its definition perspective. I would expand more on equity and Gratification theory maybe providing examples as you did with the cultivation theory. Also Relational Turbulence theory was well explained and you could possibly go into contrasting the uncertainty component you speak about.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

i don't think you have any heavy bias in this article


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

underrepresented points maybe the backlash of friends with benefits. This article seems to focus heavily on the acceptance of it as time goes on


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

I feel that the article is very informative

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Sources seem to be extremely reliable


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

yes


 * Are the sources current?

Latest source appears to be 2003 so yes I feel they are pretty current


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Links work and are reliable

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Very easy to read and clear especially when explaining the theories, the context area could use something beyond the definition but the definitions are clear


 * 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?

Great organization

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


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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?

it's on it's way to be Wikipedia Notability, I think you can add one or 2 more secondary sources


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

I don't think so there are definitely more sources that could be found especially when it comes to incorporating the selected theories into the article and the topic


 * 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?

yes


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Links to equity theory, Sex and the City, Friends, Sexual Liberation and a couple of popular apps that make it more discoverable

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

Yes the wikipedia page for friends with benefits is scarce and almost non-existent so this article definitely increases the overall quality of the article


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

Use of sources, provided more in depth definitions also the examples provided helps understand the topic. I think you did a really good job of putting the theories in layman's terms and it is an easy fun read.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I feel like the depth part of the article is on its way, providing more information in the context section would improve this article.

Overall evaluation
Overall great start of this article you added some really good theories that tie into the topic and are relevant. Your sources are properly cited and reliable and also you do a really good job at explaining things simply. Adding a critique section to the article to try to get other viewpoints would be helpful, also adding more to the context sections to provide a longer and more in depth history would tie the article in together more nicely. Overall really good job! i enjoyed reading this.