User:Komalbadesha/Ranked voting/VillusionV 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 you reviewing? (provide username) 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?

Yes the lead in did reflect the new content of the article which clearly describes the article's topic but there is no breakdown of subtopics and sections in the lead in. The information added does add relavant and recent information regarding COVID-19 and its affects on society but all while being vague. It is not overly detailed but there is not enough information at the same time. My recommendation is to breakup the large paragraphs at the beginning and create subtopics of which will be discussed later in the article.

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?

Yes, the content is relevant to the topic and it is up to date because of the cited articles are from the year 2020. It also fills a gap that was previously undiscussed and it discusses a historically underrepresented group as presented in the voter case and the reference to Black Lives Matter. There are many references to the original article "None of the above" of which the author makes connections to and adds that the information the user adds will fill in gaps of the original article.

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?

This section needs a-lot of work. It does not at all have the encyclopedia tone, and much of the information has bias. It seems rather than providing a neutral summary of the topic, it is a script of a biased opinion of the user. The user constantly uses words that are qualifiers and thus, presents a favor in one direction rather than another instead of another. The whole entry needs to be rephrased in order to reflect a neutral tone and simply stating the facts or at least differing opinions with equal weight. In terms of political parties, there should not be heavy attention to word choice that could create a negative tone.

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?

I would not say there is not a diverse spectrum of authors because most of the cited sources come from the New York Times or NPR. There needs to be a more spread out location of the cited sources and the sources should also be cited in text, rather than all at the end. The sources are current and do work, but more has to be done on the in text citations and organization of sources used. Also there is not enough sources in general.

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?

The article is clear, easy to read, and free from grammatical and spelling errors, however, the content is not well organized in any sense. It is just a big blurb and it needs to be refined and subtopics need to be introduced, not only in the lead but the user should also create subtopics afterward of which will be inserted in the original article. There needs to be a clear distinction.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

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
I would say that you are off to a good start. You have al the information but are not delivering it in the format that is needed. One of the largest changes that should be made to your article is reassessing the bias in your article and reworking from the group up and potential bias or unsophisticated language. Additionally, you do have sources but you need to incorporate them inside of your text and you cannot rely on articles only from NPR and Poltico, you need to diversify. A suggestion I would make to your lead in is that you should break up the paragraphs into subtopics which would create organization in your article.

--VilusionV