User:ZachLee888/Decoding (semiotics)/Zalata42 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Zach - @ZachLee888


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:ZachLee888/Decoding (semiotics)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Decoding (semiotics)

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - A new lead has not been added to reflect new changes, and there doesn't need to be any changes.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - Yes, the Lead is concise and straight to the point.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - All the content that has been added is perfectly relevant to the topic of decoding. Your first three draft contributions from the Sandbox gave more concise explanations as to how decoding works using Fawkes (2004); Chandler (2017); and Eadie & Goret (2013), compared to the original quotes that you provided me. You then added a new section called "Symmetry and the Two Dominant Positions" and that section enhanced the article as a whole, compared to how it was before you started making the edit.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? - Some of the content uses older sources that are older than 10 years old, however, they can be considered fairly new (early 2000s) and the articles used all relevant and scholarly peer-reviewed.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - All good there.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? - Decoding (semiotics) is not an article that deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Quite frankly, you gave relevant examples that do not need to be targeted towards underrepresented populations.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? - For the most part yes. I do think that your Drafted Contribution 2 can be improved upon. Using 1st person language feels weird for a Wikipedia article. The content itself is neutral, but the usage of 1st person P.O.V makes it seem it is about yourself if that makes sense. I suggest by writing:
 * "decoding has become so second nature in the lives of individuals that they fail to realize they are decoding. Chandler (2017) provides the example of driving, where people use the color of the traffic lights (an encoded nonverbal signal, in this case) as the basis of the encoded messages that people interpret. A green light is an encoded signalling (the receivers/decoders) to go ahead. Here, it is the context-dependent meaning – according to universally agreed-upon social codes of road rules – where individuals appropriately attach meaning to the colors of traffic lights. Overall, these encoded messages, supported by social codes and other factors, “function like dictionaries or look-up tables” for individuals in society (Chandler 178).
 * Another case of there being a bit of tinkering is the whole section of Symmetry and the Two Dominant Positions, look for cases where you write things such as: "lets say you - a recreational hockey player -..." In that case for a Wiki article, I would use more neutral 3rd person language like: "lThe example of a recreational hockey player..." or something along these lines. Instead of "you still share..." you can use "one still shares..."
 * tl;dr use 3rd person language to make the article come off as more neutral in language.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - There is no heavy bias towards a particular position. It is kind of difficult to form a bias when talking about a neutral topic like decoding.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The articles and viewpoints come from more "Western" points of views, but again, does the article need to offer a wide range of representation? If there was a case of decoding a situation in Africa for example, then that I suppose would be cool, but if that can't be found, then it's not something grand to worry about.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? In terms of content itself, there is no such biasing that leads me to form a particular opinion and lean to one side.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - As stated previously, all sources come from peer-reviewed secondary sources of information and are all relevant.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) - From what I can tell looking at the sources, yes.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - Yes, they reflect the available literature on the topic.
 * Are the sources current? - As stated previously, they are fairly current (from the early 2000s), however as preference, it'd be better if sources come from 10 years ago or newer. The sources are all relevant though.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? - As stated previously, no. Does it have to represent historically marginalized individuals? In my personal opinion given the topic in hand, it doesn't need to have such representation.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) - As stated previously, all your sources come from peer-reviewed articles. Therefore, you do not need to worry about such question.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? - Yes, they all work after quickly checking.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - What you wrote was well written. A quick check of reading aloud can do the trick for you if you have any concerns about such a thing.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - I noticed the spelling used was more akin to American English rather than Canadian English. I am personally unsure as to how to handle such a clash of languages when editing for a university project, but American English-wise, it has no spelling errors. In terms of grammar, I do not see any clear errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - Looking at the main article itself, I personally think that it is not well organized and seems too clattered together. Consider if you can divide up to more subsections.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? - The article at the moment does not include any images that can enhance the understanding of the topic. If images could be provided? Then that would be great.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - For sure, compared to how the article was before your contribution and how it is right now, I can safely say that you have improved the overall quality of the article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? - Adding the subsection of "Symmetry and The Two Dominant Positions" truly enhanced the article as a whole. The way you fixed the wordings of the original articles made the explanations of what decoding is in practice far more comprehensible and clearer than what it was prior to your contributions.
 * How can the content added be improved? - Using more 3rd person language; tinkering the organization of the article itself and adding subsections if possible; and providing an image of decoding in practice if possible; are some of the things I believe can be improved upon.

Additional Questions

 * Does your peer have 5-7 reliable sources? From what I can tell, you seem to have provided me 5 sources, which is great. You probably provided at at least 6 sources combining your work and the work that you had to review. I can say that, as in your progress you have shown to have given at least 10 new sources. Of course, the more sources you can provide, the better.
 * Does the topic link in some way to our course material? For sure. The examples of the traffic light; and the recreational hockey player, showcase relevant examples as to how decoding works.
 * Does your peer add historical context to their article? No, but again I don't think you yourself needed to add historical context to the article.
 * 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? (*see "overall impressions" for my suggestions on ways to improve your article and how to continue your strengths).

- Zaid