User:H.Susanna/E-participation/Lucaskim7 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

• Whose work are you reviewing? H.Susanna
• Link to draft you're reviewing: E-participation#Participation tools

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 was not updated as there were no significant changes made to the structure and overall sentiment of 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?
• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation

The original structure of the article had many flaws to it, and I believe this user added lots of relevant and up-to-date content, such as Quadratic voting. Furthermore, instead of just listening options for things like participation tools and mechanisms, the user expands on each and does a good job of adding proper support for each.

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 tone is somewhat neutral but there may be moments where there is not a cited source to support a seemingly obvious statement. For example, within the quadratic voting section, there are certain parts that may seem obvious to many but to maintain an encyclopedic tone it may be worth citing a source or finding a reference.

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?
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

While there are sources added, the actual implementation may need to be double checked for certain sections. As I mentioned before, to maintain the encyclopedic tone, it may be worth citing some sources again to re-enforce some of the points made.

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 content is well organized and is presented in a manner that makes it easy to read for the user and easier to follow than what was originally presented.

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 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

I think that overall the contributions does a really excellent job of filling in clear holes that were missing in the original article. The expansion on the bullet point list of information originally presented is well organized and supported by lots of strong content. I think a potential step could be to include more resources or integrate them better into the text to give the reader a better understanding of what is being presented.