User:BTayOkay/Indie Megabooth/Hannahgerny 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?

BTayOkay

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
Indie Megabooth

Evaluate the drafted changes

Overall

It's super evident that you've added new, useful information. The information is really relevant and you've done a great job! The places I see room for improvement are in the lead and the cultural intermediary sections. In the lead, you can just disperse some of that information to the history section so that the content from the lead is discussed more in detail in later sections. In the cultural intermediary section I think you can slightly tweak organization and attribute the argument in that section to a scholar, which will help you with a more neutral tone. Overall, it looks good!

Lead

The lead has been updated to reflect the new content and clearly describes the topic
However, the lead mentions some content that isn't discussed in the history or cultural intermediary sections
- The lead specifically mentions a few shows that the megabooth expanded to. (eurogamer expo, gamescom, etc), but these specifics aren't stated in the history section, make sure to note this in the history section and could add the exact years/ dates that the megabooth was first expanded to those shows if you want to add more content to the history section
- The lead also talks about how the megabooth was "sunsetted" in 2020 and brought out of hibernation in 2023, but these details arent mentioned in the history section
  - This is crucial information that should be mentioned in the history
  - You can move some content around by combining the 2020 and 2023 sentences in the lead and reserve the remaining details (like the announcement being part of a summer game fest) for the history section

Content

The added content is relevant to the topic
The content appears up to date, assuming that since the announcement in 2023 the India Megabooth hasn't had another public appearance/ been in operation
- Might want to clarify if the megabooth simply announced a return at the summer game fest or actually returned/ was operational at the summer game fest, not very clear in this section

Tone and balance

The content appears neutral and unbiased
The only spot you could potentially hav e amore neutral tone is in the cultural intermediary section
- Qualifying something as a cultural intermediary is likely subjective, so some people might disagree
- You could present this section as scholars' arguments/ opinions to make it more neutral (ex: saying "provides proof" is leaning toward an argument, should clarify that the scholar is making that connection, not wikipedia)

Sources and references

The content accurately reflects the cited sources
I noticed a broken link for the 12th citation about the booth being sunsetted, can likely replace that source with another article that mentions the megabooth left

Organization

Content is well written
As stated earlier, some detailed content from the lead can be moved to the history section
Organization could be improved in the last section
- I see that the first paragraph is outlining what a cultural intermediary is and the second is showing that the megabooth is all 3 things (seller, tastemaker, authority), but its a little hard to follow/ the connection between some of the concepts is not super clear (ex: the connection between the sentence "the idea of selling symbolic goods could be restated" and "the indie megabooth chooses which games" is unclear, could instead say something like "The Indie Megabooth manipulates culture by deciding what games will be showcased at events, which influences the games are popular in the indie video game community")
  - Reworking the two paragraphs to make it clearer might be good and also might help neutralize the tone
  - For example:
    - Keep the first paragraph as it is
    - Next paragraph: more clearly connect the first and second paragraph and note that wikipedia is reporting on a scholar's argument (ex: "Academic scholars have commented that the Indie Megabooth fulfills the role of a seller of symbolic goods, a tastemaker, and an authority of legitimation") and then discuss the details of the article