User:Sbucket77/Social comparison theory/Webb.Zach02 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Sbucket77)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Sbucket77/Social comparison theory - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Social comparison theory - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead-


 * 1) Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -I feel as if you can add a bit more to the articles lead because there is a lot of information talked about below the lead. I noted that you only added one sentence to the lead. However, the one sentence was beneficial to the lead due to its better description about the topic.
 * 2) Is the lead concise or overly detailed? -I feel as if this question about the articles lead can go either way but I believe that there can be more added detail because there is many subtopics that can be mentioned. Although, I have a feeling that this can be argued about due to the lead being concise about the main topic of the article.

Content-


 * 1) Is the content added relevant to the topic? -I think that you do well with adding more information about the man (Leon Festinger) who created this idea of social comparison. The initial article did not have much to say about the person who started this entire topic, and it was definitely needed due to the first sentence in the lead is about him.
 * 2) In the Compare and Contrast section, you stated that people like consistency but did not really explain why people do. I think that it would be good to add onto this because I think you are truly on to something here with this find of information. I also think you can add more of a description in the last piece you added in the section Low Self Esteem because you do not really explain why.

Tone/Balance-


 * 1) Is the content added neutral? -The content added in the lead and Leon Festinger sections are both shown to be neutral. However, the content added in the Compare and Contrast section I feel can be somewhat biased. Now I could definitely be swinging and missing but I think that saying social media is causing women to think that they can only look one specific way could possibly be biased. I feel as if there could be a lot more different factors going into that rather than just social media.

Sources/References-


 * 1) Check a few links-do they work? -After checking a few sources, the links work and they seem to be up to date, and they also are secondary sources.

Organization-

I think this is the best section for the editor because each of her contributions are clear and easy to read. I think the author does well with the division of subtopics that go along with the main topic of the article.

Overall-


 * 1) I think the editor did well for a shitty first draft kind of day! There was a ton of small additions and changes that I believe positively affected the article!