User:Mwashington2020/Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act/Bdmparker Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Mwashington2020)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act

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.)

Lead section

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, very nicely done.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes,    Yes

Does the lead include information that is not present in the article? (It shouldn't.)    No

Is the lead concise or is it overly detailed? No

Content

Is the article's content relevant to the topic? Yes

Is the content up-to-date? Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Appropriately addressed

Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically     underrepresented populations or topics? No,   No

Tone and Balance

Is the article from a neutral point of view? Questionable. Some areas especially under the “Positions” section appears a bit imbalanced. For example:

Sharing National Intelligence threat data among public and private partners is a hard problem and one that we should all care about.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I would not say “heavily” but I would remove words like “unfortunately” etc (see paragraph 2 under “Indemnification”).

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Somewhat

Are minority or fringe viewpoints accurately described as such? NA

Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Maybe not “persuade” but the viewpoints might not be evenly balanced.

Sources and References

Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes

Are the sources current? Yes, comparative to the topic

Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes

Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)   Already includes peer reviewed articles (reputable journals). Based on the topic, would expect to see grey literature.

Check a few links. Do they work? Yes    5/6 worked. Unable to access the first reference (Discussion Draft…)

Organization and writing quality

Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Absolutely

Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors? Negligible

Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes

Are images well-captioned? Yes

Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes

Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes

Talk page discussion

What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic? Talks about Voting and Effects on US-EU Trade.

How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects? Start-class/High Importance,    Yes i.e. WikiProject Law

How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class? NA

Overall impressions

What is the article's overall status? Published

What are the article's strengths? Appropriate level of information regarding the topic

How can the article be improved? It appears to lean towards a certain position, I would suggest neutrality

How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed? Well-developed

Examples of good feedback

This article flows well. Very well written with little to no grammatical errors.