User:Hanfino/Representative bureaucracy/Wilktyl Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Hanfino


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Hanfino/Representative bureaucracy
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Representative bureaucracy

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead -

The lead is clear and has a few sentences describing what you are about to talk about. Briefly discusses the benefits of having a representative bureaucracy without having a bias. You may be able to add a sentence directly stating what sections you will cover in your contribution.

Content -

The content added is relevant to the overall wikipedia page. I believe this information was lacking from the original and offers further insight into what a representative bureaucracy should hold. The content added did not offer a timeline but it may be unnecessary for this given contribution.

Tone -

I believe the contribution were neutral. The information addressed a gap in certain representative bureaucracies and was supported with cited data. However, there were a few cases that points were made without citations. Backing the evidence found with citations can validate these claims and make the argument stronger.

Sources -

All of the sources used accurately support the evidence that was provided. They are current and come from a wide-range of authors which helps strengthen the contribution. There were a few places that citations could be necessary to back claims made so it may be best to go back and review the contribution to adjust. Some of the data and work provided could benefit from this.

Organization - The content was very easy to read and flowed nicely. The different sections were highlighted to ensure the reader knew what was next in the contribution. There were a few minor grammatical and spelling errors that can be easily fixed with a quick proofread.

Images -

Does not apply to this page

Overall Impressions -

This article has a great potential for being beneficial in the wikipedia community. I believe it covers a large underrepresented population and data that was not in the original piece. Many of the errors noticed were very minor and can be easily fixed upon a proofread before final submission. Also, going back and making sure that citations were used in the correct areas can make this article stronger. Overall, it has a solid structure and covers an important aspect of representative bureaucracy. Good job.