User:Malak8462000/Civic technology companies/DrPronoun Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is mostly relevant, except for the awards section which is too short. It could be aligned into a different section.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, all the content is relevant and up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * In the sub-section, they have a comparison chart that doesn't need the "dates created" column as it doesn't add anything to the data.
 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content seems like NPOV, but could be skewed in the idea of healthcare.gov and buzzwords like "disastrous".
 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all sources seem reliable, backed up by multiple sources.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all sources are current and backed up the last ten years.
 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article could be strengthened by giving a new perspective from a different competitor or a regulatory stance, especially through healthcare regulation policies.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The expansion into companies that have similar missions such as Accela and coUrbanize which would not normally be shown in the Civic Technologies world.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Expand on the idea of civic technology as there is too much impact covered by different companies focused on civic technologies.