User:Natdogmillionaire/Word of mouth/CAPam30 Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
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.)
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?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images 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?
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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Natdogmillionaire

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Natdogmillionaire/Word_of_mouth&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&veaction=edit&redirect=no
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Word of mouth

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead

I think the lead does a good job of incorporating all the primary aspects of the article into it, as well as laying out a general framework for the structure of the article. You would need to add to the lead section some material about the two new sections you will be adding, but overall the lead section is in good shape.

Content

Your content does a good job of making the whole article more up to date, particularly with the addition of the social media component. It's all relevant and well-fitting to the topic of the article. In the social media section however, I would remove the part about social media not being word-of-mouth itself, and just leave the latter part of the sentence about how it is a tool that it spreads.

Tone

The tone is good, there's not really much to say about tone because the topic is neutral anyway. You also do a good job of leaving out any biases or persuasive language.

Sources

Your references all look good and credible, and up to date. I would just make sure in the real posting that you resolve any of the things highlighted in red that make the citations incomplete. Overall though there are good citations across the board.

Organization

The overall organization of the main article is pretty straightforward, so there's not much you would need to do or adjust. The one thing I would add though, is if you were to keep the information about how social media is debated as a tool vs real word of mouth, you could put that under a bottom section titled something like "tools of word of mouth" or "mechanisms" or something along those lines. It's fairly straightforward and direct also, with no grammatical errors.

Overall Impressions

Overall I think the material you have to add to the article is quality, reliable, and well written information. I would suggest either removing the comments about the debate of social media being a tool/mechanism, and leave the organization as is, OR, leave that information and create a new section about tools and methods, etc. Overall though, very nice work.