User:Corrinfish/Political Ethics/Ccarson2 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? User:Corrinfish
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Corrinfish/Political_Ethics/Bibliography?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_bibliography

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
The lead is short and to the point. Content within the lead is described in the article including the additions being made.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes articles from 2002, 2016, and 2018
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? No

Content evaluation
The information pulled from the articles are relevant and up to date with the latest being in 2018. Content belongs in the paragraphs, nothing missing.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation
Added content is neutral and doesn’t try to persuade my point of view.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
References are up to date and links work that go to the articles used.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
Under a paragraph title would look better, but it is well-written and easy to read.

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? Yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Not persuasive
 * How can the content added be improved? Organization

Overall evaluation
Adding more about ethics of policy and the process helps the article available on Wikipedia grow. I like how you added public morality into the context as well since that wasn’t in the paragraph of “Ethics of Policy” so adding that helps understand the topic to a better degree. The ability to stay unbiased with this article is well done. It must be hard to try to stay neutral when dealing with anything among the realm of politics.

The organization of your paragraphs could’ve benefited from being in a paragraphed category, that would make it visually better off. I would also like to see the article in-line citation added with the reference like how in the main article it is done. The one source just needs a title filled in as it is suggesting as it might’ve not formatted properly, but should be an easy fix

I like how your article was formatted differently than that of your sources, it was well done. I’m sure my article could benefit from reading how you do that as I can apply it to my own articles.

Overall, making your sections more visually appealing, as to how they would look in the main article, would be beneficial. This is work of yours is a job well done.

Ccarson2 (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)