User:Matthew.meyers5/Citizens Convention for Climate/Zraerobertson Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Matthew.meyers5


 * Link to draft you're reviewing User:Matthew.meyers5/Citizens Convention for Climate
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) Citizens Convention for Climate

Evaluate the drafted changes
The changes added by Matthew thus far are relevant and excellent, providing critical empirical information on the representativeness of the Citizens Convention for Climate. My primary commentary revolves around issues not addressed yet, rather than criticizing the work done by Matthew.


 * 1) Lead: the lead of the article as it stands (without Matthew's edits) is underwhelming. It uses incorrect punctuation and the incorrect tenses ("is called"). More importantly, content-wise, it fails to discuss the outcomes of the climate convention. It says that the system consists of 150 randomly selected citizens, but it provides no further information on how the citizens deliberated or the other bodies used during the convention. Given Matthew's improvements to the article down the line, I recommend that he update the lead to better reflect the information and quality that he has added.
 * 2) Content: the sortition and demographics sections of the articles are great, but it may be useful to explain the "expert" involvement before including their data in the demographic section because the lead (as of now) and no section prior to demographics includes information on expert involvement. Also, it is unclear if the "159 and 160" people is related to the "190 citizens... selected, with 40 of them serving as substitutes" above in the sortition section. As a note, sortition is also a Wikipedia page that has a link. In the sessions section, it may be useful to include the five group divisions, or at least examples of the divisions (one group was farming while the other was industry-focused). It also might be helpful to use some familiar terms when describing the events of the sessions, like in the second session, you have a good summary sentence, but it may be potentially more helpful to describe the session as involving "agenda setting". I think the sentence including "forecasted barriers" could be further clarified or removed because I am not sure what it adds currently. In the fourth session section, expanding on who the squad was and why were they disbanded would be helpful for understanding.
 * 3) Tone and Balance: the article maintains an encyclopedic tone throughout and spends a good amount of time describing the sessions. I think that the theory and formation sections are particularly important and may be used to replaced the "origins" section, and should be about equivalent in length to the description of a particular section.
 * 4) Organization: I think the article is generally well organized, but I think including expert involvement before the demographics section is again important. The session section is well organized. A final really minor criticism is that some sentences in the sessions section can be a bit repetitive in verbiage. For instance, one sentence uses "decided" twice fairly close together. Looking over minor issues like these may make the article a bit more readable, though it is already excellent.

~