Talk:Hollow state

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ERamos57, Sss71996, Sidsmall22. Peer reviewers: Tkc21, Katlynshull, Bmk33.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): B p145, Tstamp2, D h200, Jkell96, Krposton4. Peer reviewers: PerlaPerez1, AnthonyP11, Kaleplumlee, Drewvilla2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review Turner Coulson
Principle #1 Comprehensiveness a.	Content –Provides only a brief definition, article seems unfinished. Information doesn’t appear to be sufficient. b.	Thesis – They do have a clear focus on the Hollow state. Very few references are provided. c.	Representativeness – I believe the tone is correct, but the information as a whole is lacking. Principle #2 Sourcing a.	All information is supported by references. My concern is the amount of references and the variety of sources. Principle #3 Neutrality -The article is neutral and doesn’t contain any bias language or swayed opinions. Principle #4 Readability a.	Language- Easy reading for most readers. The entry is written well and contains no grammatical errors or spelling errors. b.	Organization- Clear outline and focus, but there’s a lot of information lacking. c.	Formatting- Lead sections and outline all appear to be created with the consultation of the Wikipedia style guide. d.	Illustrations- no images on the page. Open ended questions The group expanded upon a previously non-existent article is what I can assume. Seems to be a lot of lacking information More information and the fleshing out of some of its sections. Tkc21 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Examples
Could we have some examples of Hollow states please? Biscuittin (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom has some of the attributes of a Hollow state. It has elections but they don't change anything because all three main parties have the same economic policies - market forces, privatization, hostility to public ownership. Biscuittin (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review
Comprehensiveness The lead section is the article is a very brief description of a Hollow State, and it mentions some aspects of this topic that aren't address later in the article. All the points that are address are very clearly and in an order that was understandable. Some of the material was so cited but all together, the flow of sentences could have been better.

There is only one spot where a citation is needed, however, the rest of the article seemed to be cited correctly. None of the section were off topic.

The article wasn't very balanced. The “purpose” subsection tried to highlight the intended benefits for implementing privatization of government organizations. The rest of the article makes very clear of the short comings and disadvantages of this government policy. The “outcomes” section seemed most critical of a hollow state style government but does not give detail of how an outcome of corrupt totalitarianism could happen, nor gives historical examples to support this claim.

Sourcing As mentioned before, the only problematic statement was in “Outcomes” section. The statement was very bold and negative, gave no further explanation to support the statement, as well as an incomplete citation. Good within wiki sourcing that links to other wiki articles.

Readability Some complex vocabulary is used when it could’ve been simplified more. Sentence flow could be better—having cited sentence after cited sentence from different sources makes a paragraph sound choppy. Otherwise, information was well displayed. Hap22 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review
Wikipedia principle #1: Comprehensiveness

Details	Notes

a. Content •	Does the lead section (first paragraph) of the article include a useful and clear overview of the topic/summary of the article’s main points? •	What are the key points of the article as you understand them? •	Does the contribution include a sufficient amount of information for the topic and a reasonable outline for the material that fully covers the core material, relevant issues, and key debates? •	Are the points well supported by evidence with sufficient references and analysis? b. Thesis and analytic focus •	Does the article focus on a clear topic? •	Does it include detailed scholarly support (where appropriate)? c. Representativeness •	Does the contribution consider a variety of perspectives rather than relying on just the point of view of one or two scholars? •	Does the contribution take an appropriate tone in providing competing points of view? •	Are nuances and subtle distinctions clarified appropriately?

Yes. The overview provides a good description of what a Hollow state is.

The key points are that the Hollow state is a state which appears to be a democratic, free society, but is not, that the phrase came about during the Reagan administration, why is became a trend, and why it exists today.

The article provides a detailed outline and does provide valuable information. It fully covers the topic.

Evidence is provided, such as how and why the Hollow state came about.

Yes, it is very precise in its content. It is strictly focused on the Hollow state.

Yes, the article provides plenty of reliable citations and refers to them often.

While the content seems as though it may be slightly biased in the section “Purpose,” it does offer a good perspective.

Other than the section titled “Purpose,” the article is written in a very scholarly tone and seems to seek only to educate

Yes

Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing

Details	Notes

•	Are all claims supported where appropriate with references? •	How reliable are the references? Does the article have enough/too few references? •	Are sources represented accurately, with references following an approved form? •	Is language precise, so that sources do no overstate claims and represent the nature of studies and the evidence provided? •	Does the article contain un-sourced opinions or value statements?

Yes. Each claim is cited appropriately with accurate sources.

The article has plenty of references

All sources are represented accurately and come from very reliable websites and articles

The language is precise in that that article neither overstates nor understates anything. Nothing is exaggerated. The facts are simply, yet accurately stated.

It does have a few uncited statements, however, most do not need sources or were previously cited.

Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality

Details	Notes

•	Does the article have a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints? •	Does the article avoid stating opinions as facts? •	Does the article avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts? •	How well balanced is the coverage? For instance, are the key elements given equal treatment? Are sections overly long or short in proportion to their importance? Again, the section titled “Purpose” was slightly biased in that it seemed to point fingers at certain presidential administrations for the Hollow state’s occurrence, but is clean other than that section

For the most part, yes, the article is not opinionated

This article only states facts that can be researched and proven. Especially considering the controversial nature of the article, there are no highly contested statements.

Each section has been given the attention it deserves, with each part being fairly balanced and explained thoroughly.

Wikipedia principle #4: Readability

Details	Notes

a. Language •	How well written is the entry? •	Are sentences carefully crafted to be clear, avoid passive voice and grammatical errors? •	Has the entry been proofread to remove typos, wording errors, misspellings, etc.? •	Is the entry accessible to Wikipedia's broad audience, including people from different educational levels, backgrounds, nationalities, and expertise in English? •	Is complex language avoided when simple words and sentences will express the same idea clearly? b. Organization and style Is the article’s structure clear? Does the group use/plan to use headings and subheadings, images and diagrams at appropriate places?

•	Does it have a clear focus and is it well organized? •	Are the paragraphs well structured? c. Formatting •	Has the submitted entry followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia?

Section organization: Does the lead section have no section headings?

Links: Does the entry link to a wide variety of other entries? Are there sufficient links to relevant related topics? d. Illustrations •	Does the article include appropriate images where possible? •	Are these images used in accordance with the image use policy? •	Are the images appropriately captioned?

The entry is well written and explains the basics of what a Hollow state is completely.

There were no grammatical or structural errors to be found and each sentence is clear.

No mistakes in the article.

This article allows people of all backgrounds to access it because it is written simply and concisely.

It is very well simplified.

The only thing I would consider changing is moving the section “Original Intention” just above the section “Purpose,” because it seems to make sense to talk about its original intention first, then what it ended up turning into.

It is very well organized.

There are plenty of links provided for subject related to Hollow state.

There are no images. These would certainly liven up the page.

Open-ended feedback Questions Open-ended Questions

Question 1: What do you like most about what the group has done to the article so far? Why? I think the article was very well edited and now provides plenty of sources and information on the subject.

Question 2: What are two improvements you think the article needs? 1.	Add some images 2.	Rearrange the “History” section to make “Original Intention” come before “Purpose”

Katlynshull (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this article is extremely clear and understandable. The main points bring strong importance to the overall subject and highlight the ills of the hollow state. The information is supported with a sufficient amount of information backed by reliable sources that happened to be extremely unbiased. This is aided by the articles concise focus and appropriately placed sources that make sense. The intricate details of the article are organized and boast clarity. The sources in the article diversely express information that is old and new and help articulate what a hollow state truly is. The article does not contain unnamed and is well cited. The neutrality of this article weans at points but for the most part is exceptionally balanced through and through. This article is also very simple to read for all ages because o the minimalistic vocabulary choice that makes it extremely accessible. The details form the literary illustrations to the format were put together in a complete manner as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyP11 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

URL Error to be rectified
Hi! I tried to fix the URL error. However, the website(the link) is on wikipedia's black list. For future help, the current URL is a copy and paste from Google, without opening the link. Anybody interested in rectifying the error should follow the link and then paste.-Jn045 (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)