User:Komalbadesha/None of the above/Brandonqin Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are are you reviewing: Komalbadesha
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Komalbadesha/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead of the article is accurately updated to reflect the new content added, as it talks about voting and the impact of None of the above. The lead does also have an introductory sentence as it is an established article, also briefly touching upon the major sections. The lead doesn't include information, however it does lack in citations in the lead. The lead is relatively long, so maybe looking towards cutting down content on that section of the article could be another suggestion.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic, and up-to-date as it brings up examples of recent events, like social media and its impact on voting. There aren't many gaps in content, but pointing out specific examples could be beneficial to improve on structure, as it does seem like a block of text rather than an organized list of events. There is no direct address towards historically underrepresented populations, but voting and the ability to choose representative candidates does tangentially relate, so it does help people become more educated on why None of the above is being considered.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
I would double check the tone in this draft. I believe a lot of content is not neutral, as you mention words like "we" as well as stating more normative statements such as "this makes things more complicated". Although it may be true, it would be helpful to source exactly where that statement comes from, otherwise, it seems like you are giving an opinion. It does seem that the viewpoint of None of the above voting being good is being overrepresented, as you use words like "huge difference" instead of just stating what is changing. I feel like many of your statements give off an emotional appeal that may swing people to be more biased, so double checking tone would be good, as it needs to be impartial. What could help with this is having multiple examples of good and bad.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources look good, they are reliable secondary sources, and they do reflect directly upon the topic. The sources are also current, as they pertain to current issues. There is also a diverse array of authors and sources, however, I do not believe any directly targets marginalized individuals. The links work as well. What is missing are sources in the text, everything is currently pasted at the bottom, so make sure that you start adding in-line citations to show which statements came from which source.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The content is well written and gramatically flows with no apparent spelling errors, however there are issues with tone and balance as mentioned previously. Another mention was the structure of the content, currently everything is in one block of text with no header or direction, so I would advise to add some headers to signal to the reader where this should fall within the article. I believe that would help later on as well when you are adding the final polished piece into the existing article.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, good content, and it definitely adds more to the article. However, few things to keep in mind, changing up the tone and balance to being impartial, linking sources correctly within the text, and incorporating more structure within the content itself. Definitely a great start for a draft, and excited to see where this goes!