User:Melissawwang/Quadratic voting/Adamng926 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)
 * I am reviewing Melissawwang's article on Quadratic Voting.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Melissawwang/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The Lead has been updated to reflect new content.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * The Lead includes an extremely concise and clear description of what it deals with
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, though it goes in depth with much of the concept of how it works.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The Lead does not include information that is not present in the article, focusing mainly on the topic of Quadratic Voting and giving a true lead that will be further discussed in the rest of the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I would say it is extremely detailed and could be cut down. Much of the Lead that was edited by the user could have been put down under Concept instead.

Lead evaluation:
The Lead was extremely detailed and went over much of what Quadratic Voting entails, though I felt as though it went too into detail. I felt as though it could have been implemented throughout the rest of the article and touch more onto key concepts such as the history, application, and overall concept of how it works.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * The content is extremely relevant to the topic and needs to have been added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is not all up-to-date, with some sources coming from 2010 and others coming from 2000, though there was a plethora of sources.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There is no content that is missing or does not belong.

Content evaluation:
The content was extremely valuable to the text, and many sources were utilized to back up statements that were made. In addition, much of the data stated was extremely detailed and had links to other Wikipedia sites that could provide more detail on other related concepts. The only area of improvement is the date of sources, as some were outdated.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * All the content is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are no claims that are biased, as concepts and history are simply stated factually, while criticisms were stated objectively.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints are all balanced.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content is all neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation:
All in all, the tone of the information added is necessary and neutral, and many have no bias whatsoever since the content that is added does not have much room to take sides on. In terms of the criticisms, a little more room could have been made for potential supporters to combat the section solely on the negatives of quadratic voting, but this can also be largely emphasized by Contemporary Applications and impacts that it has, which the user chose to emphasize on.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all new content is properly backed up.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are extremely thorough and span over 20 sources, all discussing different takes on quadratic voting.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Not all the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * All the links that I clicked on work.

Sources and references evaluation:
The sources utilized were relevant and important to the article. Discussing democracy, robots, robustness, voting, and the political side, the sources covered a broad range to tackle quadratic voting, and almost every other sentence that made a claim was backed by a different source. However, I would check to ensure that all the information is still backed, since some claims were made by sources that were made since 2000.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written. It is extremely clear, and the sentences are easy to read since they flow well together.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not catch any grammatical or spelling errors written down.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content added is well-organized, since it is broken down into sections that cover the general topic.

Organization evaluation:
The content was organized very well, as all of the sentences were flowing and were very specific. The content also was very clear and represented what should be written in the final article, since it lacks much of the information that the user aimed to cover (concept that is detailed as well as applications on how it is used today).

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:
Overall, the content added was extremely detailed and covered much of what was missing in the original article. The only improvement needed is more reliable sources, and since there are so many sources already listed, it would not hurt to take away the ones that are outdated and no longer necessary.