User:KO525W/Guerilla Open Access Manifesto/Maggrond Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

KO525W (?)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KO525W/Guerilla_Open_Access_Manifesto?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: I think the content in the first paragraph is great, it helps to explain why the Guerilla Manifesto needed to be created. The second paragraph lost me a little, it seemed to be more about Aaron Swartz than the manifesto. I wonder if it might be better to try and narrow that paragraph in on what the manifesto really is, and devote a different section in the body to who Aaron Schwartz is and how he created it. I also want to note, for the lead and historical context sections, there are consistent grammatical errors--Aaron Swartz's name is spelled wrong, there's inconsistencies with capitalization, and odd or incorrect punctuation.

Content: The content is great! You have a lot of information and the topic is well-covered!

Tone and Balance: For the most part I think the tone is pretty neutral. I had to guess I would say the author is pro-Swartz because of the heavy explaining of what he did and how it was beneficial--I don't disagree but it might make the article more balanced to add something about the "other side"; for example, what are the repercussions of academic articles being leaked (ie, who, if anyone, gets hurt from that)?

Sources and References: You do a good job of linking information and have a source-heavy article! One thing I noticed was in the lead, there's a claim that some sites require over 1000/year subscription and the link after that doesn't mention anything about that (that I noticed). It also looks like you double cited that link in the bibliography as sources 1 and 2.

Organization: Overall this is great! The format is clear and easy to follow.

I think this is great start to your article! My biggest recommendation for improvement is just the grammatical errors. There's some minor format and content items that I brought up, and overall new/more information never hurts.