User:Jimzhen21/Common-pool resource/ToharZamir Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jimzhen21


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimzhen21/Common-pool_resource?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Article

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.)

Generally just some mechanics and grammar changes ("references" instead of "preferences", making sure to add "and" to lists) could be desirable to improve the article's flow and readability.

I would suggest some more citation to the "common property systems" area if possible, or if not, then perhaps trimming it by combining the sentences a bit. It's not too long or unwieldy though, so that's not a pressing concern. It definitely is not biased in this section.

I like the design of the definition matrix! it's a good way to purvey the information.

For the Institutional Factors section, I would generally avoid saying "some believe" and instead would lay out the idea itself. That's up to you though–if the article focuses on a rift in beliefs, it could be prudent to keep it. Just be sure that each opinion is cited, and that they're generally equally weighted as not to bias towards one or the other. You also might not need to reference Ostrom by name in the sentence, just in the references.

As for the remainder of the article, the content is solid. Everything is well explained, and the leading sentences are good as well. However, being that this is a rather verbose article, I'd encourage you to try to trim the writing to be more approachable. It could be difficult to do in some areas, but wherever possible it could be helpful to a reader if sentences were combined and the dense paragraphs thinned somewhat.

Also I'm not sure you need a conclusion area–it might be superflous in this instance (just because it's uncommon for Wikipedia).