User talk:Rge6eb/BeReal

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No the lead has not been updated
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Kind of, it just talks about the apps originator, but nothing about its function, like what the app is known for
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * In a way
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * I would say no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, alot o the addition include the dates of the information collected
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I would say that it is also worthy to specifically say the user base is also secondary school school students like high schoolers, not just mention uni kids. Because the stat listed was “16-25” which includes high school students
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * I don"t think it has equity gaps, the ONLY thing i can think of is maybe including people's demographics and how that effects the app's traffic…but i feel like that’s really not needed

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * I would say so
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Yes, but they are not coming from the studnet herself. Rather the additions she chose to add were of people stating their opinions on the “BeReal” and those come across as biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I dont think so
 * 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
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes
 * Are the sources current?
 * Definitely, the vast majority of them were published in either 2022 or 2023
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * yes
 * 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.)
 * possibly, but from what I can see the sources were pulled from trustworthy publications
 * 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?
 * yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I do not see any
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media…they did not add any pics 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 for 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?
 * yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * yes
 * 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?
 * Yes, this student added more and altered the og headers to make her article more specific and easier to follow
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * I would say so, she added in stats that help visualize the progression and ambiance of the app
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * They are backed up by facts
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I personally think that overall the additions were good. They were positioned in good places that either the predecessor and/or whatever comes after explains/justifies its placement. I also like how she did not overdo the edits.
 * maybe add a scetion about the ongoing changes of the nature of the app, and how all these new fetaures kind of diminish the whole purpose of the app which is to "bereal"...but for example you cant delete and reupload a be real and you can take multiple retake...so on..but again it's not really needed, but just a suggestion:)

JanelleNDri (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with @JanelleNDri that this article draft is solid. It looks like you found some great sources and made some improvements to the article. I did also like the suggestion of potentially finding a source for some of the controversy @JanelleNDri mentions in her overall impressions section of her peer review. In general, I find BeReal to be fascinating--social media platforms are always innovating new ways to measure and demonstrate "authenticity"--super fascinating topic. KGS8TH (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)