User:Ey1123/Computational Politics/Kbae67 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ey1123

NOTE: this was completed on May 6 and 7.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ey1123/Computational_Politics?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Computational politics

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead:


 * The lead itself has not been updated, but there is a section with a bold-faced title of "New information." This could just be the information the user wants to add and will do in time or it's a new section they are adding into the article.
 * Yes. The sentence describes what computational politics is a combination of and then it goes on to discuss what it is.
 * The majority of the information provided is interesting and relevant, but the Ashu M. G. Solo information doesn't seem relevant or necessary to be in the lead. The information also needs to be more brief in the lead section. Putting the majority of the in-depth information in another section will help making the lead more brief, but still informational.
 * In the current version of the article that exists, there is only a lead section and then the references. In the draft that Ey1123 is working on, there's a section titled with "New Information." The information in this section adds to the lead section's description, but since the lead is more detailed than brief, when reading it felt like I was reading new information that was in addition to what was in the lead.
 * In both the current version and the draft, the lead is more detailed than concise.

Content:


 * The content added is relevant to the topic.
 * According to the reference of the new information, it was published in 2014.
 * Yes, it discusses how the information that is collected by computational politics can target voters as well individuals.

Tone and Balance:


 * The information is neutral as it is presented in a way that is not trying to persuade or convince the reader to believe something in particular. There are no phrases or words that don't feel neutral. There are no claims on behalf of certain unnamed groups.

Sources and References:


 * The first source is from a reliable search engine. It has information presented in the article, but is in new words. It was published in 2004, so that's not the most relevant and up-to-date. The source is more brief than than thorough, but that could be because it's more of an abstract. The link works.
 * The second source does not have a link, so I copied and pasted the reference into my URL and found a HandWiki link and then a link to the current Wikipedia article. This one does not appear to be a credible (or working) source. It is the source for the Ashu M. G. Solo information that is presented in the lead, which doesn't necessary in the lead or maybe in the article at all.
 * The third source comes from the University of Helsinki, which is in Finland. It also does not provide a direct link, so I had to copy and paste into the URL. This time, though, a credible source came up with information that is given in the article and sourced in a good place. The wording, however, is just changing a few words instead of putting it into new words. Also, the use of "categorise the work in to five major categories" in the current article is redundant. Instead of "categorize" words like use, apply, name, etc.
 * Finally, the fourth source comes from a peer reviewed journal. In the draft, the source is added when describing what the Obama campaign did in 2012, but I'm not seeing it in the source that is provided at first glance. However, when clicking on the HTML link, the source comes in full length and I found the description of Obama's campaing usage of computational politics.

Organization:


 * The organization is off, but that could be because the user of the draft is just putting in all the new information they want to use for their final draft. The content is easy to read, though.
 * There are some spelling errors, like "categorise" is spelled with an s instead of a z in the current article.

Images and Media:


 * There are no images.

Overall impressions:


 * The information added does help improve the current article because there is more information as well as an example as to how it has been used in the past (by Obama's campaign).
 * Something that can be improved is the overall organization and the lead section being more brief by adding the in-depth descriptions in later categories instead of having it all in the first two - and only - paragraphs.