User:Brusso7/LiquidFeedback/Adamng926 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)
 * I am reviewing Brusso7's work on article on "LiquidFeedback"
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Brusso7/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, since no new content was added to the Lead by my peer.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence that is concise and clearly describes the article's topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead does not include much about what the sections discuss, such as Usage, Protection, and Technical Specifications.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Not entirely, since there is no detailed information regarding what representative democracy entails within LiquidFeedback.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead is concise.

Lead evaluation:
Overall, I believe that the Lead was very concise and covered the main topics of what was going to be the article. However, I believe in certain respects that it may have been too concise, failing to address different topics such as protection of minorities as well as technical specifications. Perhaps tapping into a few more topics of impacts of LiquidFeedback that generally addresses the topic later on in the article would be beneficial.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is all relevant.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * No, the content is not completely up-to-date, as some are published in 2013, though most sources are up-to-date, being from 2015 onwards.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, all content was relevant.

Content evaluation:
The content that was added was relevant and meaningful to the article. However, there was a grammatical mistake in the second sentence as well as the last one in the first paragraph. Many of the sentences are cited and proven to be correct, though the sources themselves (even though all are reliable) are a bit outdated. Overall, it was nice that the user even added positive aspects in order to maintain a good balance to the criticism that was already written in the article.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * All content added is neutral, though the pros of LiquidFeedback could have been stated in the perspective of the general public and could be seen as a bit biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There is a claim that LiquidFeedback provides a convenience factor when it comes to voting, and those who may feel shy about voicing their opinions can speak freely on the platform without having to be worried about what others think of them.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, all viewpoints have been balanced out by the user.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the added information is balanced.

Tone and balance evaluation:
The tone of the article is very balanced and neutral, which is beneficial. It is also positive since the user clarifies what LiquidDemocracy does and the overall impact that it has. However, it may seem at times that the user over-exemplifies the function of what LiquidDemocracy does, which in turn can make it seem as though it is biased (pitching the concept). Other than this, it was balanced, and this was clearly shown as the user looked to add a section on what is positive to counter the negatives discussed about LiquidDemocracy.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the content was backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are very thorough, written largely by extensive reports.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are not all current, as some span over 5 years ago.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links that I clicked on worked.

Sources and references evaluation:
All sources are reliable and do a good job of explaining specifically what concepts and where arguments come from. However, not all sources are completely current.

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, being concise, clear, and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * The content has a few grammatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is very well-organized, discussing additional information that is added in as well as a new section that is clearly written.

Organization evaluation:
Everything about the organization is relevant and specific, though there are a few grammatical errors in the first paragraph (spelling error). The additional information was successful in adding much detail to the article.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation:
Overall, I felt as though Brusso7 did a great job of adding edits to an article that clearly needed to be improved. He added much more detail and context to what LiquidDemocracy entailed, including the history of how it was first utilized. In addition, alongside adding commentary toward the criticisms, Brusso7 did a great job of balancing this with positives of LiquidFeedback. His sources were very important and crucial to backing up certain statements he made, though I would suggest that he search for all modern sources rather than sources more than 5 years old.