User:NeptunePlayss/Whistleblowing/Cmb203 Peer Review

General info
(provide username) NeptunePlayss
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:NeptunePlayss/Whistleblowing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Whistleblowing

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:

The Lead has been updated to reflect the new content added.

There are no introductory sentences that describes the articles topic. There are subheadings and the definition and/or explanation underneath.

there is a brief description of the major sections.

This is all new information that is not present in the current article.

Content:

The content that is being added to the current article is relevant and up to date information but there are some areas that could be shortened down to being.

-"Whistleblowing is the act of exposing or reporting information about unethical, illegal, or morally unacceptable activities, typically within an organization or institution, to relevant authorities, the public, or other concerned parties"- this needs to be cited

-"Types of Scientific Wrongdoings"- in this section there needs to be the types listed out as a subheading with an example of what the type is where it is not one big paragraph. In the examples given in the paragraphs they could be cut down, as in: "Dr. Cyril Burt's, a psychologist, work in heritable factors for intelligence based on studying twins was retracted because of false data being submitted about inconsistencies in the birthdate of the twins being studied".

--all three of the paragraphs need to be reworded and cut down.

-


 * Office of the Whistleblowers OMBUDS touches on the protections and policies focusing on Federal Scientist Whistleblowing. In 2012, Congress amended the Whistleblowing Protection ACT to include disclosures of censorships related to research, analysis, or technical information.  -This needs to have a citation

Tone and Balance:

the content added seems to be of a neutral standpoint without any biased opinions where the reader would not be persuaded of be in favor of a position.

Sources and References:

The information in the article seems to be cited properly with citations from articles but the links to the articles used to cite where not given.

Organization:

The organization of the content is organized well with headings but there needs to be some separation between the subheading and content of the subheading.

Images and Media:

There are no images or media provided in the content.

Overall impressions:

I think this is a good addition to the existing article but i would cut down some area of the types of scientific wrongdoings to make it less wordy and more precises informant.