User:Pen2531/Catfishing/Daisydaily24 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? Pen2531
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Catfishing

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The Lead has not been updated to reflect any new content.

The introductory sentence could be clearer and more descriptive.

The description of the articles major sections could have been better organized to make it easier for the reader to understand.

All of the information mentioned in the Lead is mentioned again somewhere else within the article.

The lead could be more concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
There has not been any new content added but the current content is relevant to the topic.

The current content is up to date with the most recent source dating 2019.

All of the current content makes sense in the article. The history section of the article could be expanded.

The Article does not deal with Wikipedia's Equity gaps or address historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall the current content is neutral however there are a few sentences that show sense of bias such as "some online users".

None of the content or claims appear to be overly biased.

The articles viewpoints seem to equally represented.

The content within the article does not seem to show any acts of persuasion. Overall the article does not seem to be biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
There has not been any new content added. Within the current content there are a couple of citations missing and an overall lack of sources.

The sources are thorough, I feel that there may be more information from scholarly sources on the topic.

The sources are current, with the latest source dating 2019.

The sources are written from a variety of publishers and authors. The sources do not include historically marginalized individuals.

The links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


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

Organization evaluation
The content could be more concise and clear, there is a lack of fluidity throughout the article.

The content does not seem to have any spelling or grammatical errors.

The content could be better organized to help with the fluidity of the article.

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?

Images and media evaluation
My peer did not add any media or pictures.

The current picture placement is confusing and doesn't add much to the article, If there was a section on MTVs catfish and Nev Schulman the picture placement would make more sense.

This image does adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.

The current picture could be placed in a better location.

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?
 * 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?

New Article Evaluation
This is not a new article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
There has not been any new content added.