User:Dalexandertom/Civic journalism/Lindseyjli3 Peer Review

Peer review[edit]

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
- Yes, there is mention about the future of journalism and its challenges as well as the topic of ethics in civic journalism that is reflected in the draft.
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
- Yes, the Lead includes a concise and clear introductory sentence about civic journalism.
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
- Yes, the Lead includes a brief description about what the contribution's entail. In this case, specific topics within civic journalism are mentioned, such as the impact of civic journalism in day-to-day life and the integration of social media in civic journalism as well as the topic of ethics.
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
- No, the Lead includes information that are present in the draft of the article contribution. Although, the topics in the Lead that were touched on in the article draft, the mentions were very brief and could use some more detail.
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
- The Lead is pretty concise and includes a solid description of topics that are included further in the article.

Overall, the Lead is well-written and provides a solid brief introduction of what's going to be covered in the article as well.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
- Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic of civic journalism. There are sections in the article draft that address different topics that were mentioned in the Lead about civic journalism, such as the future of civic journalism as social media gets involved.
Is the content added up-to-date?
- Yes, the content is up-to-date. Perhaps expanding on the social media aspect of civic journalism might be beneficial since social media has a rising significant presence in the journalism and political landscape in general.
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
- Currently, there is no missing content or content that doesn't belong. The article focuses on addressing the topics mentioned in the Lead.
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
- This article doesn't necessarily deal with Wikipedia's equity gaps or address topics related to underrepresented topics or populations. Civic journalism is a prevalent field, especially as the 2020 US Presidential Election is approaching.

Overall, the content portion of the article is also well-written and is a good starting points. Certain sections in regards to content can be expanded upon as this draft did seem a little general and didn't expand into examples or more detailed descriptions. Additionally, there could be headings included at the beginning of each section to indicate the start of a new section as it may be easier for readers to go through the article.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
- Yes, the content is neutral.
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
- No, there aren't any claims that appear to be biased. The article focuses on providing descriptions and facts.
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
- In certain sections, there could be some more details included to represent various viewpoints in regards to the varying opinions on ethics.
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
- No, the content presented in the article is unbiased and neutral.

The article draft has a neutral POV and is impartial. In some parts of the article, some viewpoints can be expanded on and included in the article, specifically the debate on ethics concerns.

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
- For the most part, the content is supported with reliable sources. However, more sources can be added since there are currently only 8 sources.
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Yes, the sources are thorough and published sources.
Are the sources current?
- For the most part, the sources are current. However, it would be beneficial to add more current sources as some are from the mid-2010s.
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
- The sources seem to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors and don't seem to include historically marginalized individuals.
Check a few links. Do they work?
- The links and sources work!

The sources were solid and were overall pretty reliable! One thing to possibly consider is adding more sources to the bibliography since it's relatively small at the moment. Another thing to consider is to research some sources that are from recent years as some of the sources are from the mid-2010s as mentioned earlier.

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
- Yes, the content is easy to read and concise! The language utilized was understanding and easy for the reader to digest.
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
- Currently, there don't seem to be many grammatical or spelling errors.
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
- Yes, the content is organized! As mentioned earlier, it might be beneficial to include headings before the start of a new topic/section to make the flow a little less choppy.

The article is at a good starting point and can be expanded upon with more details. There are reliable sources that are referenced and the content is a neutral, unbiased POV. If possible, including more sources might be beneficial. Currently, there aren't many grammar or technical errors. Overall, this article brings up good points that are solid contributions to the main article.