User:Tasmia.r/Participatory budgeting/Bryankjh Peer Review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

• Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
  • Tasmia.r
• Link to draft you're reviewing:
  • User:Tasmia.r/sandbox

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
  • No, the author is making edits to other sections of article instead
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
  • Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
  • No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
  • No that Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
  • The Lead seems to be the proper length.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
  • Yes, the content added talks about the results of a specific study regarding participatory budgeting.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
  • Yes the content is up-to-date and was written in the last five years.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
  • No, there is not 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?
  • The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
  • The content added is made neutral by adding a Criticism section where the author talks about potential arguments against participatory budgeting.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
  • There are no claims that are heavily biased, and the two sections offer two different viewpoints.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
  • The criticism section is noticeably shorter than the rest of the article, which may lead to people perceiving the section as underrepresented.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
  • No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
  • Yes, all of the content is properly cited throughout the article.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
  • Yes, the sources are thorough but this is something that can also be expanded further.
• Are the sources current?
  • The sources are current and up-to-date.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
  • Yes, there is a diverse spectrum of authors and publications in this article. There are no historically marginalized individuals.
• Check a few links. Do they work?
  • Yes, the links work.

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
  • Conciseness is one aspect that the content can be improved. It is easy to read but there are sentences that can be shortened and concised.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
  • No, the content does not 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?
  • I think the article's original structure of having the outcomes section within the history section does not make that much sense. I think one thing that the author can consider is including a section called "methods" above the outcomes.

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
  • The content has added and improved the overall quality of the article. The contributions offer a more descriptive description of some of the examples of participatory budgeting and its experimentation.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
  • The strengths of the content added is that it adds a perspective on the criticisms and it is well cited throughout all the paragraphs.
• How can the content added be improved?
  • I think one way this article can be improved is if the author adds a "methods" section in front of the outcomes section so that there is an added sense of coherence and organization throughout the article.