User:Schwammy1/Spoiler (media)/Tallahasseesportscaster Peer Review

General info
Schwammy1
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Schwammy1/Spoiler (media)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Spoiler (media)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead has been updated to reflect added information, in fact the lead has more than doubled in size. I don't think the third paragraph of the lead is necessary, as it runs long and perhaps the three types of spoilers it is describing should just have its own subheading. The added content is relevant to the topic because it expands on the psychological effect of spoilers and makes the important note of detailing how spoilers operate in different mediums. As far as bias goes, if anything, the edits made to this article make it less biased. Everyone tends to think of spoilers as only bad, but the additions to the article describe the positive psychological effects of spoilers as well. As far as the sources, it looks like more may need to be linked to the text. The references section contains 9 sources, but only 6 of them are used in the actual article. Of those 6, only 3 are linked, which is more of a procedural thing. 6 of the 9 sources have been released within the last 10 years, so it looks to be up to date. Especially when it comes to spoilers, there is a lot of new information with how social media and streaming has changed how people consume content. One suggestion is to look into how NBA insiders tweet out selections during the NBA draft before the picks are made. This doesn't happen in the NFL because they ban reporters from this practice. The content is well-written and well-organized, I found it all to be informative while also brief to easily read. This sandbox does not include an image, but the original article already has one, so additional pictures may not be needed. I can't think of one that would be helpful to this particular article.