User:Spritestar/Corporate propaganda/SMMC2002 Peer Review

User:Spritestar/Corporate propaganda/SMMC2002 Peer Review

General info
Spritestar
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Spritestar/Corporate propaganda
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Corporate propaganda
 * Corporate propaganda

Peer Review
Lead

I really do like the updates and additional information you added to the lead. Before, it felt a bit unfinished and didn't provide enough content pertaining to what Corporate Propaganda is. The lead now feels very concise and understandable for the average Wikipedia user. The editor may consider switching the position of the first two sentences of the lead, as the second sentence one would work better as an introduction to the topic of the article (could possible combine the sentences into one so the reader will have an idea of what Propaganda itself is before jumping into Corporate Propaganda). If there is a Wikipedia page for them, I would suggest linking the articles to public relations, marketing, and advertising to help the reader define those terms in case they are unfamiliar with them. I think the mention of Organized Persuasive Communication (OPC) can be built out into its own section (or maybe apart of an already existing section). As of now, it is only mentioned in the lead and could benefit from a bit more elaboration in regards to how it connects to Corporate Propaganda.

Content

The addition of the History section is very beneficial and is built out well. Incorporating this section also successfully worked to represent an aspect of Corporate Propaganda that was previously underrepresented. The phrases that are in quotes in this section may be unnecessary. I do believe one of the trainings mentioned that we are not allowed to directly quote the sources (i.e. using quotation marks). Instead, we can paraphrase what the author mentioned and cite the source at the end of the sentence. I would suggest adding headings to the History section, as there are several topics listed that could benefit from being broken up. For example, you can consider adding subheadings such as "Creation of Propaganda," "War Propaganda," and "Tobacco Propaganda." According to the sources, the content added does seem as up-to-date as possible (given that this section is covering the early stages of this topic). I would suggest building out the Direct Marketing section, as it currently only has a link to its own Wikipedia article (you could possibly briefly summarize the topic and how it is connected to Corporate Propaganda). The Crisis Communications section does include a block quote, which can be paraphrased with the citation added at the end of the sentence. I would like to ask the editor if they plan on adding the sections from the original article that are not in the sandbox or struck out from the sandbox (i.e. Online, Ethics, etc.)? I'm not too sure if I should provide feedback on those sections, given that the editor may not want to include them in the final revision of the article.

Tone and Balance

No information added by the editor feels biased or over/under-represents a specific topic of Corporate Propaganda (everything seems balanced and unbiased).

Sources and Resources

The new sources added by the editor are relevant and are well-incorporated into the article. All of the links of the cited sources work correctly and are placed in appropriate sections. If the editor does choose to build out a few of the sections with less information, I would suggest added a few more sources or using the pre-existing sources to ensure everything incorporated is backed up. The sources do range in age with some being very recent while others are over 30 years old, which feels appropriate for the article (as mentioned earlier, historical context would most-likely require older sources).

Organization

There are a few grammatical and spelling errors that I noticed, which is I assume will be fixed by the editor before finalizing their article (as this is just a draft of the fully-edited article). The information added by the editor can be organized a bit differently in order for it to be read more easily, which I did mention previously in this peer review. The content added may benefit from being slightly more concise, as I think the Historical section was a bit wordy. The editor may consider combining some of the sentences that cover similar points about Corporate Propaganda in order to make the verbiage more concise and easy-to-read.

Images and Media

The editor did remove the previous image and added two images that are relevant to the article. The captions of the images could benefit from more information, as the are currently very short and contain only surface-level information. I would suggest using the caption of the image from the original article as a point of reference, as it provides more content to the reader than what they can get from looking at the picture.

Overall Impressions

I do think the editor did a great job of adding relevant information that helped add context to the article, which made it feel more complete. However, there are a few areas that can be further built out and explained in a way that allows the reader to understand why those sections are important to Corporate Propaganda. If you have any questions or are confused on anything I mentioned, please feel free to reach out to me and I'd be happy to help :)