User:Vtrevizo18/Theories of humor/Jaybreeze123 Peer Review

General info
Vtrevizo18
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Vtrevizo18/Theories of humor
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Theories of humor
 * Theories of humor

Evaluate the drafted changes
I'''s everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

This article has minimal copy additions and it appears that the writer is still working on providing more content to topics that are already present on the page. It seems there is already a substantial amount of information covering the Relief Theory and Incongruity Theory, so I would encourage the writer to present new topics/theories for discussion that will help build on the overarching subject of the article. If the writer is aware of concepts involving the theories already mentioned that are not yet discussed and are important for the reader to know, those would also be beneficial additions to the article.

There are a few grammatical errors that are distracting. I would recommend a thorough review before submission.

I'''s the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

As I mentioned, the content provided is limited, but what is available is neutral and avoids being biased toward any particular position. I feel the original copy is also neutral and provides multiple perspectives within the two theories being discussed.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The copy as a whole (new and original) provides sufficient viewpoints to express key aspects of both theories. I would encourage the writer to either bring out new aspects of each theory to help bolster the amount of content, or explore new theories of humor completely that have either not been discussed as thoroughly or at all. In the section "Other theories" of the original article, there are a few theories that don't have as much content as the others - I would start there.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

The citations seem appropriate and scholarly. As far as the links working, it appears that two are books and one was a Stanford encyclopedia submission of the philosophy of humor, which was linked to the article. After accessing the book sources via the CSUF library, I found that the sources cited support the claims made in the article.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

I would say the facts found in the article are supported by reliable, appropriate references. The information, as I mentioned, comes primarily from two books and one article on the philosophy of humor in Stanford's encyclopedia. I would say the sources are neutral as they are the regurgitation of information pulled from other/original sources.

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

The information used seems up-to-date as the citations are all from the 2000s.

I would encourage the writer to explore theories within the article that have not be discussed as in-depth or provide insight into new topics/theories completely. I noticed in the original article that there is no history section involving the theories of humor. I feel, given what I have read thus far, this might be an important piece in pulling each of the theories together at a central starting point. As there are various ways to make additions to this article given the broad topic (THEORIES of humor), I feel it is important to focus on a few areas that will really help give the reader the information that is most important for them to know.

Overall, the article needs more content and a solid review before submission. The writer is on the right track as far as the citations that are being used and the tone of the copy for a Wikipedia article.