User:Tsweeney617/Influence of mass media/BryanC194 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) Tsweeney617
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Tsweeney617/Influence of mass media

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Includes introductory, and is concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No, but can be found within the actual article. That being said, the sandbox shows their contributions.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, but unsure under which subheading the information will be going under.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? All content is relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content is based upon sources that date from 2014-1986. Could find sources that substantiate their contributions from the timespan of 2016-2020.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? To a degree yes, but modestly. Well centered and not forced.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Content is neutral
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? For the most part no, but may illustrate the current consensus of discussion.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes. And parts of discussion revolve around marginalized groups.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Content is concise and to the point.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Nothing that was apparent.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, but needs to add subheadings to their contributions.

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?
 * 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?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Contributions were well structured and to the point. Nothing felt forced. Overall good contributions
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The structure and discussion of their contributions.
 * How can the content added be improved? Maybe attempt to be more concise and find sources that are current.

Overall evaluation

 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? For the most part no, but may illustrate the current consensus of discussion.
 * Is at least one of them a source from class reading or the "suggested sources" list? Yes, uses content found within Cohen's monograph.
 * Are the sources current? Content is based upon sources that date from 2014-1986. Could find sources that substantiate their contributions from the timespan of 2016-2020.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? Topic relates to course material by directly incorporating topics discussed by Cohen’s monograph. Such as the 1920s social transformation of the FDR administration, post-war suburbia, and market segmentation.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? Yes. Historical context is their main focus.
 * Based on what you know from course content, what do you think Wikipedia users should know about this topic? In other words, what would you recommend adding and/or considering further? Could incorporate the media influence of the 1980s, where consumer expectations were shifting towards a more neoliberal mindset. Maybe discuss how popular culture viewed consumption throughout that time, specifically music and film.