User talk:Clmoody1/sandbox

Peer review

General info Whose work are you reviewing? Clmoody1

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clmoody1/sandbox Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It looks like a structure is there for the Lead, but no information past that Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Very concise at the moment Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic? It looks like the structure that will outline the article is relevant Is the content added up-to-date? Most of the references are extremely recent Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The outline is there, just needs to be filled in Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral? Thus far, yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not at this time Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not at this time Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It looks like all of the references are from reputable journals Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? It looks like it will take a look at the background of parasocial and then its impact within social media and entertainment Are the sources current? 60% are within the last 2 years Check a few links. Do they work? No links yet Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? There is just an outline/structure at the moment. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It looks to have a good structure Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No Are images well-captioned? N/A Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A Images and media evaluation 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? There are 5 sources How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? It looks to have a good mix of sources 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? Not yet Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Not yet New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It is a new article What are the strengths of the content added? It looks like it will provide good background information and real world application once completed How can the content added be improved? The structure/outline looks good. Just need to add in the information Overall evaluation

Chrissusskin (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This is my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clmoody1/Parasocial_relationships sandbox draft link on the main Wikipedia class assigned article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.126.3 (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)