User:Sbucket77/Social comparison theory/Webb.Zach02 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?

(Sbucket77)

Link to draft you're reviewing: Editing User:Sbucket77/Social comparison theory - Wikipedia
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): Social comparison theory - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead-

Has the lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? -I feel as if you can add a bit more to the articles lead because there is a lot of information talked about below the lead. I noted that you only added one sentence to the lead. However, the one sentence was beneficial to the lead due to its better description about the topic.
Is the lead concise or overly detailed? -I feel as if this question about the articles lead can go either way but I believe that there can be more added detail because there is many subtopics that can be mentioned. Although, I have a feeling that this can be argued about due to the lead being concise about the main topic of the article.

Content-

Is the content added relevant to the topic? -I think that you do well with adding more information about the man (Leon Festinger) who created this idea of social comparison. The initial article did not have much to say about the person who started this entire topic, and it was definitely needed due to the first sentence in the lead is about him.
In the Compare and Contrast section, you stated that people like consistency but did not really explain why people do. I think that it would be good to add onto this because I think you are truly on to something here with this find of information. I also think you can add more of a description in the last piece you added in the section Low Self Esteem because you do not really explain why.

Tone/Balance-

Is the content added neutral? -The content added in the lead and Leon Festinger sections are both shown to be neutral. However, the content added in the Compare and Contrast section I feel can be somewhat biased. Now I could definitely be swinging and missing but I think that saying social media is causing women to think that they can only look one specific way could possibly be biased. I feel as if there could be a lot more different factors going into that rather than just social media.

Sources/References-

Check a few links-do they work? -After checking a few sources, the links work and they seem to be up to date, and they also are secondary sources.

Organization-

I think this is the best section for the editor because each of her contributions are clear and easy to read. I think the author does well with the division of subtopics that go along with the main topic of the article.

Overall-

I think the editor did well for a shitty first draft kind of day! There was a ton of small additions and changes that I believe positively affected the article!