User:Alex K. Tran/Delegative democracy/Ishangill10 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? (provide username) Alex K. Tran
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Delegative democracy

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead has been updated to reflect the new content added by Alex.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead does indeed include a brief overall description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does include information that is not present in the article, and the additions are detailed in nature.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is quite detailed in their additions to the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content Alex has added is exhaustive and relevant to the topics as well.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content added is indeed up to date and does not include outdated sources or information.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is not necessarily content that does not belong, but there is most likely some content missing from this article since overall there was not much to begin with. The article needed quite a bit of improvement and Alex has done a good job of making additions.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added maintains a neutral point of view.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no biased claims that were involved.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * All viewpoints are evenly spread in terms of representation. Since there was not much in the article to begin with, Alex did an excellent job of adding information from both positive and negative viewpoints.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The added content does not attempt to persuade the reader.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All sources are reliable and the content is extracted skillfully from the sources with no signs of plagiarism.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are indeed thorough.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All sources used are current and provide relevant information to the topic at hand.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked do work and redirected me to an external source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written, and quite exhaustive as well. Overall, it maintains a neutral point of view and is relatively easy to read for any ready.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not find 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?
 * All added content is relatively well organized, but could be broken down into greater detail with more sections or headers to symbolize a divide when bringing up new topics or viewpoints related to delegative democracy.

Images and Media
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?

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?
 * The article does seem more complete after Alex added his information to the article. The quality of the article was very subpar beforehand and Alex has included relevant information. Any improvements or additions to this article with relevant information on the topic of delegative democracy, such as the information that Alex added, is undoubtedly useful.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The content added is all relevant and brings up information on what delegative democracy is in greater detail. It also does a good job of portraying how proponents feel about this topic, but conveying certain negatives as well. Overall, more background context and detail is brought into the article which was not present before.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Previously in the article, too much emphasis was being put on different countries that implemented this philosophy, and the article sub-headers were based upon this. Alex did a good job of providing more specific detail on what a delegative democracy entails for the people and for the government rather than simply describing use-cases.