User:Natasharintoul/Media ownership in Canada/Snwashing 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

• Natasharintoul
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Media ownership in Canada

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?

Lead evaluation

The lead has not been updated based on my peer's contribution, but the introductory sentence of the lead in not concise as it seems to venture in multiple directions trying to encapsulate the topic with too much detail. The lead does a good job of highlighting all major sections of the article, while not exposing information that is not present in the article.

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?

Content evaluation

The content that my peer added is very relevant in enhancing the comprehension of the market share in Canada by adding statistics that are up-to-date.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation

The content added was very neutral because it simply presented statistics and the known effects on the market, backed up with sources. The content is generally informative in tone but some the stated negative market effects of the ownership are not offset by any positive effects; therefore, a reader bias towards a negative view of media ownership in Canada could be created.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

The sources used for the added content are reliable and current, and the existing sources were functioning based on my testing, but not all of the sources were current; therefore, some source updating/revisiting may be due.

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?

Organization evaluation

The added content is very concise with no grammatical errors, and though it is not large in word count, it is very effective in understanding the Canadian market. The section that the content was placed in complemented the existing work in that section very well by expanding on the idea with statistics.

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?

Images and media evaluation

There are no images in the article.

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?

Overall evaluation

The content added by my peer has improved the article by reinforcing existing claims and adding contextual detail to better grasp the article's subject in whole. The content added could be improved by following up on the section regarding the challenges of smaller providers with statistics or protests.