User:Yifanbao1/Media democracy/Candreaangulo 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? (provide username) Yifanbao1
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Media democracy

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? 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? Lacks information.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? No
• Is the content added up-to-date? No
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I suggest the author should watch the academic language used. The article's purpose is to inform and not convince such as the language presented suggests. Secondly, the author should include a diverse description in the paragraphs of each section. For example, in definition, I perceived every paragraph or sentence as a different way of defining Media Democracy.
• 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? No, the article sounds like an argumentative essay.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes, specially with the choice of words such as "should be".
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Yes.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Somewhat
• Are the sources current? Somewhat
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? No.
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Yes.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat.

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? No
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? No
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? No

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?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• 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?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?