User:Pen2531/Catfishing/Kendra325 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? Pen2531
• Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, gives a thorough definition and explanations behind the meaning
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. Gives enough information and ends with a statement that helps get into more detailed topics.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
• Is the content added up-to-date? From the past six years, yes.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I think there should have been more sociological approaches stated. Also, more images and maybe some statistics would have given more information.
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The sociology viewpoint could have gone into a more detailed approach. It could've gone more into a wide range on the effects it has on society and maybe some statistics.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, not at all.

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? Yes
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, most of the articles come from the Washington Post and Psychology Today
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, they do work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the added information is easy to read. Although, some things added seem to not fit with previous information added.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, none that I could point out.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The added information seems to added in the wrong sections of the article. Some things were added that could have been put into their own section rather than put together with an topic that's totally different. For example, The backstory of the Catfish TV show's executive, Nev Schulman in the history section of the article.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? It does contain one image, yet it's not very informative of the topic overall.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

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? Yes
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, some resources could have been added within the Sociology and the Catfish TV show sections
• 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? It does contain section headings
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It has improved the article with more information, but the article still does require more sources
• What are the strengths of the content added? It states more evidence of the topic and with many resources added
• How can the content added be improved? The content next time should be separated differently into more detailed sections