User:Ab7155/Bribery/Noah Wetz Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ab7155


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ab7155/Bribery?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Bribery

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - No, You may want to just update the lead of this article so it encompasses a comparative outlook as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes, I like the topic you have chosen to add to this wiki article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?- yes, I like that your oldest sources is from 2013.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?- yes, You should really add more countries and how they handle this situation. maybe even break it down by region? if this is too broad then maybe just stick to a couple of different countries and say why you chose those countries.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?- maybe? I would say because of PNG that this is a yes.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? - Not really, there is only two countries listed even though this is "bribery in different countries." maybe just call it "bribery in PNG and Russia" then? Also give evidence as to why people take bribes and the different system that allow/don't allow it? I think this is a good start but it just needs more information.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?- yes, add the viewpoint of the people that accept bribes and why maybe?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?- no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - yes, but some of the sources need to be cited multiple times instead of just once at the end of the paragraph. For example, the second sentence of the entire thing needs a citation.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)- yes, but yo need to state how the research was done in this wiki and just elaborate on it more. I would not just say "the research......"
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?- yes, you just need more probably, or just elaborate.
 * Are the sources current?- yes, very. good job.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?- yes
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)- yes, but your sources are pretty good as is, you just need more information.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?- yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?- no, it is not clear. It kind of jumps around and references research but doesn't say what research. It is very choppy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - yes, many. The first sentence should say "reflects cultural norms" instead of "reflect culture norm" maybe run it through a grammar checking program.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - You have a good start on organization. I like the trade and solution sections. you will probably need more though.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - Yes, you have a good start here and I think the overall article will benefit from a comparative prospective. However, it just needs more meat and more details.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?- Up to date sources
 * How can the content added be improved?- Needs just more information and clearly defined the different ways countries view or handle bribery