User:Jameswang323/Civic Intelligence/Melissawwang Peer Review

Peer review

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? @Jameswang323
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jameswang323/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • Yes
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • Yes
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • Concise

Lead evaluation

I think the Lead section was very good, there was a good amount of new content added by James as he elaborated more upon the role of artificial intelligence and included more examples of conferences or international events that tied into Civic Intelligence.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes

Content evaluation

Yes, James did a very good job in updating with newer content on civic intelligence. To add upon the original article, James added the Paris agreement decrease global warming. In even more recent events, he included references to Jason Corburn and Elinor Ostrom that are more recently active political scientists. He also included an academic article that was published online on February 6th, 2019. The new content has a significant about of new information with new citations. I think the Lead is sufficient in length, however I think some sections of the article are not completely related to the topic of civic intelligence. For example, James includes the background and information about what the Good Global Summit is, but I feel like this was a section that did not have to be explained in the civic intelligence but he could have linked the Good Global Summit Wikipedia page instead.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Yes
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

Although majority of the content is unbiased and does a sufficient job of keeping the content purely informational, I feel like some parts are a little too "definite". For example, you included how people of different backgrounds and different political backgrounds "ultimately" leads to the formation of new identities. Although this could certainly be true, I think it is important to list this more as a possibility instead of a definite result of different backgrounds from individuals. The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader towards the direction of the author.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

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

Sources and references evaluation

The sources and references added were all very recent articles from credible sources. I appreciate that there were academic journals included as well as primary sources of civic intelligence such as Harry C. Boyte's account. The links I clicked on all worked, and they redirected me to the correct website (instead of simply just the homepage of the news website).

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Some
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Somewhat

Organization evaluation

I think for this part, you could definitely consider adding sub-headings in order to organize the civic intelligence article a bit better. I had some trouble differentiating where each of the new sections started because the paragraph spacings were small. I think there were some sections where you started the sentence with a lowercase letter, so I think it would be better to go through your article and check for any small spelling/capitalization errors. Also, I think it is good to break apart contractions (ie., "doesn't") since this is a more professional article.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
• Are images well-captioned? N/A
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation

I think it would be good to include some graphics! It doesn't necessarily have to be an informational graphic with statistics or data, but I think you could utilize other pictures to make the entire article more interactive or eye-catching.

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? Yes
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation

Overall, I think the overall quality of the article significantly improved. Since the first article was much shorter and lacking newer updates, I appreciate how you included more recent/contemporary information as well. I think the strengths is how you were able to include how social media, the development of AI, and the rise of the accessibility of the internet has impacted civic intelligence.