User:Xiying Huang/Media strategy/Jalenrose8 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?

Xiying Huang

Link to draft you're reviewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Xiying%20Huang/Media_strategy?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Media strategy

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: The lead paragraph of the article is pretty clear and concise. It gives great context for the topic that the article is about and even gives some good example of different media strategies that are used. Leaves a lot of room for further detail about the strategy later on which is good.

Content: I think the content is filled with great information and I liked how you broke down each word separately to help better explain the term altogether. I like your idea of giving an example of a successful media strategy that has been implemented in the real world but the Old Spice example was a bit confusing for me. Maybe try to speak a bit more to the specific campaigns that the company ran and give more examples of how exactly they were able to create an increase in revenue through those strategies (ie., billboards, commercials, social media posts) But lots of information and I like where you are going with giving a specific example!

Organization: The way the article is formatted in terms of order of information is great. You give a good idea of what is to come in the introduction article and then dive right into details. Maybe add on to the body of the article by providing another real-world example and how generally companies are effected by specific campaigns. I also think that you could add a good summary conclusion paragraph maybe just to give a refresher after so much information has been provided in the body.

Overall: I think the article is headed in the right direction. Maybe just keep an eye out for grammar and sentence structure as things got confusing at times with sentences like "Even though men are the direct consumers of men’s body washes, they rarely purchase it by themselves while women is the main buyer of men’s body wash instead. According to such quantitative research finding, Old Spice tailored a series of social media campaign to attract female consumers and finally led to a steep increase on sales." Your tone is very good throughout the article as it stays rather neutral on the subject. Great work!