User:Tasmia.r/Participatory budgeting/Lucaskim7 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? Tasmia.r
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Participatory budgeting#Outcomes

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?

The lead has not been updated to reflect the new content added by my peer but I believe that it is not entirely necessary to change it. The potential edits that will be made are no changing the actual flow of the essay but rather bolstering flaws that she identified, specifically in the outcome and research section.

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?

I think the content added is the strongest element of these contributions, as there is a lot of good evidence being used to support the points made. Initially, the outcomes section was very bare and did not have much content, but my peer added relevant and up-to-date content that make the outcome section one of the stronger, more-detailed sections of the article. The criticism section was also very helpful and balances out the seemingly overly optimistic side.

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?

I think that the content added is quite neutral and that there are many good points made about participatory budgeting, but it may be largely focused on Brazil. While there is a lot of content to discus about Brazil, and evidently lots of research done on participatory budgeting on Brazil, it could be helpful to add insight from other countries that have experience with this kind of budgeting.

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?

The handful of sources that the user lists and the various studies referenced are very strong and contribute a lot to each respective section. The quotes being pulled from certain studies are not too long and each have their own impact to the heading points being made.

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?

I think the organization of the article makes it very easy to read and flows well, especially when considering the original structure of the article. I did not spot any grammatical or spelling errors that would take away from the contributions.

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?

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?

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?

Firstly, I think there are many things that your article contributes to both the outcome section as well as the criticism section. Initially, the outcome section is very bare and is essentially just an info dump of various papers. With your draft of contributions, the plethora of sources and evidence was very impressive and I liked the structure of the paragraphs in which each paragraph delivers a new point supported by its own set of papers and studies. I think a potential change that could be made to the article outside of what you have already drafted is an insight on participatory budgeting outside of Porto Alegre. Understandably, a good amount of data is derived from that study but I think it could be interesting to see the perspective of participatory budgeting in other countries. Lastly, I think the most important thing to do to improve the article is to uphold the encyclopedic tone and have balanced coverage. As I mentioned before, there is a lot of coverage on Brazil so it could be helpful to find a balance with contrasting countries.