User:Gobears18/sandbox

Response to Peer Reviews

 * 1) The author does a good job of developing and adding sections to the article. The writing appears to have a neutral tone. For the awards section, it would be helpful to elaborate more on the significance of each distinction and the organization with which it is associated, while avoiding sounding like a tangent and instead focusing on how it contributes to FiscalNote's reputation and the overall big picture.

Thank you for your feedback! That is a great comment and I believe it would improve my article to add onto the significance of winning the SAAS award


 * 1) The content that is being added is relevant to the topic since there are sections added like its relation to civic technology, the awards it has received, an overview and it's history. All of the work added is cited correctly. The citations all seem to be from neutral sources that aren't opinionated such as a link from the MIT Technology Review. I really enjoyed how there was a section called delete where the writer explored what already existed on the topic on wikipedia and realized that some of the sections are irrelevant and meant to attract people to the platform. One thing that didn't seem neutral was the conspiracy heading and the information present within. It didn't seem like the author was trying to sway us in any way, but it seemed when you say something like 'leave them at a disadvantage' it seems like there is an opinion there. Maybe to make it more neutral the author could forgo the disadvantage part and stick to facts on how it is unaffordable. Overall. the edits the author intendeds to add are very insightful and would add a lot to the already existing article.

Thank you for your time and feedback! I agree that I could use more neutral language within the controversy section and removing the statement about disadvantage would be the first step.

Thank you for your time and feedback! I do not believe that the article is heavily skewed in the impact of FiscalNote as I am stating what they have done and their goals. In addition, I added a controversy section to avoid that specific point. In the existing article itself there is an awards section that I was looking to add that statement towards. Perhaps adding a competitors view to the controversy section would assist in improving my article.
 * 1) * The content is mostly relevant, except for the awards section which is too short. It could be aligned into a different section.
 * 2) ** Yes, all the content is relevant and up-to-date.
 * 3) *** In the sub-section, they have covered content in neutrality by adding to the article.
 * 4) * Is the content added neutral?
 * 5) ** The content seems like NPOV, but could be heavily skewed in over-representing the impact of FiscalNote and how it might change the world
 * 6) *** Yes, all sources seem reliable, backed up by multiple sources.
 * 7) **** Yes, all sources are current and backed up the last ten years.
 * 8) ***** The article could be strengthened by giving a new perspective from a different competitor or a regulatory stance
 * 9) ****** The content adds awareness to Civic Technologies of how this new product could change the world with innovation and transparency
 * 10) ******* Combine the awards section with the Overview section about global innovation for the 2022 SAAS Awards.

I noticed an additional Peer review however it came up blank when I clicked the link and when I checked their sandbox.

American Civics Test
The author does a good job of expanding on the American Civics Test article and explaining concepts in detail. The content produced is up to date and speaks of the latest controversy surrounding the American Civics Test. The tone of the article is neutral and states what others believe on the topic without inputting their own beliefs. The content is well written and varies in sentence length making the article intriguing to the reader. The only suggestion I can make is that the author varies his sources as five sources come from the same website.

Algorithmic Radicalization
The content added about Algorithmic Radicalization is up to date and references movies produced in the last few years relating to the topic. The content is portrayed in a neutral tone simply stating the definition such as a "lone wolf" or what the movie was attempting to say. There is a variety of sources and over ten links to provide multiple sources as evidence for their sentences. The content is direly needed as the current article has three sentences. The writing is in good grammar and very easy to read giving the reader a clear understanding of what Algorithmic Radicalization is. The only advice I would suggest would be to add an image to the wikipedia site depicting Algorithmic Radicalization.

Civic Technology
The content is all up to date adding content about countries that previously had little or no information. All content added is written in a neutral tone simply stating what the civic technology company is and what they do within the specific country. All sentences within the draft are supported by articles. However, the majority of the sources detailing the civic technology companies come from the website of the country the writer is speaking about. Overall, the content has improved the quality of the article as there were gaps in information about civic technology in certain Southern American countries and effectively provides examples. The main advice I could provide would be to use sources from websites other than the topic and to switch up transitions as the word "also" is used in the majority of your transitions.

Controversy Section
The price for the service of FiscalNote can exclude groups who cannot afford the product Additionally, the price of FiscalNote could potentially create inequity among lobbyists and assists those who can afford it to be better equipped to protect their clients and self interests. Also, part of lobbying to pass a bill is in the human interaction and effort that numbers cannot compute leaving FiscalNote's data "imperfect".

Civic Technology
FiscalNote is a tool of Civic Technology as it provides organizations or companies with real time governmental policies. This connects companies to the government allowing them to take notice of what policies may impact their business and allows companies to stay in compliance while pursuing future goals. In addition, FiscalNote could also help the government gain the public's trust by providing transparency in their actions and policies. FiscalNote could possibly provide insight into more streams of Civic Technology such as providing information to citizens about the different policies representatives are associated with and how that would impact their daily life by voting for them. Another use of FiscalNote is to utilize the extensive dataset they provide to conduct research about different administrations or ideologies in government.

Awards
Curate is a technology platform owned by FiscalNote which won a global award for the best global innovation at the 2022 SAAS Awards.

Overview
FiscalNote seeks to modernize the outdated government relations system in an effort to communicate from companies to the government level using artificial intelligence. FiscalNote also uses software that attempts to predict the likelihood a bill will pass based on certain key phrases and historical precedent giving companies live insight on what is taking place at the government level. The data FiscalNote reveals for bills include the strengths and weaknesses of the bill compared to historical figures, a timeline of the committees it has passed, and the likelihood it will survive. FiscalNote to the present day has also expanded into the media space since the addition of CQ Roll Call and released ESG Solutions to cater to the environmental, social, and governance niche.

History
The highlights of adding CQ Roll Call in 2018 is in the fact that it gave FiscalNote an edge over rival Politico Pro through providing a stable financial flow with the consistent subscriber base and a competent data set. By adding CQ Roll Call, FiscalNote gains an entryway into the media world and an opportunity to cover what certain bills may mean to subscribers instead of having to interpret the raw data. FiscalNote ESG Solutions is unveiled in 2022 to assist clients in environmental, social, and governance goals, risks and regulations. Through the creation of ESG FiscalNote has evolved from being simply a data and media source after the addition of CQ Roll Call and has transformed into an AI system capable of interpreting raw data and relating it to the specific issues of customers.

Acquisitions
Curate a Civic Technology company that provides data to help companies monitor risk and provide clarification at the local government level acquired by FiscalNote in August 2021.

Aicel Technology a South Korean alternative data company that specializes on new-coming fintech companies was acquired by FiscalNote in 2022.

Delete
"Corporate Culture", "Advisors and board", and "Events" sections as they are very irrelevant and read as if it is intended to attract employees.

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, FiscalNote laid off 6% of the company, with one source telling AdWeek that the layoffs included the entire team of investigative reporters, and all but one staff member from the print magazine team" - Irrelevant to the recognition and impact section.

What Can I Add to FiscalNote?
I believe that the Corporate Culture and Events subsections under Operations should be removed as it reads as a job add. In addition, I would like to add a controversy or criticism section to present both the pros and cons of FiscalNote. Lastly, I would like to add the progress or what FiscalNote has accomplished as the most current event is 2021.

FiscalNote
- Main contributor of article has ties to the company

- No criticism of company

- Recognition and Impact section reads slightly as promotion instead of stating facts

- Operations section reads as add to attract employees stating facts irrelevant to what FiscalNote is

Spacehive
- Article contains few information and under 20 sources

- No images

- No criticism of company

- No information on current projects

- No information on connection as civic technology company

Code for America
- The last event mentioned was in 2019

- No criticism of company or room for improvement tab

- Only one image

- No connection to civic technology section