User:Jameswang323/Civic Intelligence/Peterorfanos 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? 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, the lead has been updated.
• 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?
  • Yes, the lead is concise.

Content

Guiding questions:

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

Content evaluation

I think that James does a great job with adding information to the article however I think the section on "trolling" is unnecessary. Although it does tie into how it can negatively impact civic intelligence I think that you start to make a claim about it which I don't think is necessary so maybe try to make it seem less like a claim.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • For the most part
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • The trolling spot.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • No, there are not.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No.

Tone and balance evaluation

I think the only gripe I have is with the trolling part, In the section you seem to make claims that you are concluding about how trolling causes all of these things but rather you should include examples of how trolling has caused certain movements/actions to happen (Area 51 raid could slide in).

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes content is backed up.
• 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 that James used were all very relevant and current plus the variety of sources that he used was very helpful for his article and is something I hope to get a little better at,

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?
  • There were a few
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
  • I think it is well organized, could be broken up though

Organization evaluation

The flow of the entire drafted article seemed to work very well. I think that if you were to use some other headings to break up what you are trying to elaborate on that would be a large help toward guiding the reader through the very intriguing information you've spelled out.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

N/A

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 the content added improves the quality of the article tremendously. The current article lacks the details that James brings to the table and I am excited to see where James can add to it more. Personally, I really like the information on Boyte you merged into your article; it worked well with the whole political engagement aspect and explained a huge part of political engagement in our society. The one thing that could be improved is that the trolling portion seems to try to make claims that are not backed by sources so please try to find examples where trolling caused what you are claiming and you should be fine.