Wikipedia:Peer review/New media/archive1

New media

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for July 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because its topic is extremely important, yet the article's treatment is like a school essay and random gathering of quotations by scholars, not a proper encyclopedia article. It would benefit from review by multiple, experienced editors. Thanks, ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments: Sillyfolkboy

• The lead should be a summary of the article and not contain any information not in the body of the article. Maybe this section should be moved to a new section in the article and a whole new lead written. (see WP:LEAD) I've attempted to create a lead section. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Throughout the article book references are made in an inappropriate manner e.g. (Croteau and Hoynes 2003: 311). These should be converted to footnotes with all the book's info/ISBN etc. (See WP:CITE)
• A thorough check of the references should be made to see if they are reliable sources and correspond to the statements which they back up. Ref number 25 (broken link) is a particularly bad example of citation.
• References (i.e. the numbers in the article body) should be placed immediately after the full stop of the sentence they back up and no spaces should be between each reference number.
• All books in the references should be in italics.
• "Articles and books" should be "Further reading" Done. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• All sentences which appear to be original research (statements which need a reference to verify them but are without one) should be removed from the article as not to mislead the reader.
• The notability of the term "new media" should be proved in the lead section (i.e when was the term first used? Is or was it a term used regularly by scholars/journalists?)
• This statement should be sourced as proof of the origin of the term - "The term 'new media' gained popular currency in the mid 1990s as part of a marketing pitch for the proliferation of interactive educational and entertainment CD-ROMs."
• Some terms are inaccurately wikilinked (e.g. Rheingold). Though entertaining, I'm sure Wagner's operas won't provide more insight into "New Media"!
• The article contains some redlinks that appear not to warrant an article themselves (e.g. Andrew L. Shapiro). Those links should be removed.
• The section header "New Media as a Tool for Social Change" should not use capital letters beyond the first word unless it refers to the title of a book/work etc.
• The section "The new media industry" appears to be mislabelled as the section only refers to advertising and marketing: it should be renamed and fully referenced
• This statement concerns me - "While the term New Media is disputed " - Why is it disputed? Who disputes the term? Above all - most importantly - who reaffirms the term?
• A merge banner with Digital Media was removed and the merge discussed on the talk page. However I do think it would be appropriate to have a subsection summarising "New Media" in the "Digital Media" article.

If these problems are significantly dealt with I will post more suggestions to improve the article.

If you found this peer review helpful please consider doing one yourself. Choose one from the backlog, where i found this article or take a look at WP:Peer Review.

Thanks. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)