User:Kunikmaddox/Dog whistle (politics)/BenDUpolcom Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(SkylerChiabai and kunikmaddox)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kunikmaddox/Dog whistle (politics)


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

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.)


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? For the most part, an extra detail would complete the lead.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? The lead is not redundant, it's missing additional information to give context to the topic
 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The sections are organized very well, starting with the origin and meaning and then delving into each countries own experience with the term.
 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Each section is very evenly placed in terms of importance although the United States has extra emphasis.
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? The viewpoints aren't missing but some are underrepresented and don't have context behind the quotes.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No
 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." Yes at the end when mentioning criticism.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. No
 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Most of the statements are reliable sources.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Most statements have two different sources backing them up.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No statements do not have sources.