User:Noah Wetz/Procurement/3113N3113N Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:Noah Wetz


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:NoahWetz/sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Government procurement

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.)

Feedback by Ellen Hahne:

Lead: You have a good lead for your paragraphs. It situates the topic you are discussing in relation to the rest of the article.

Content: Your content is relevant to the article, I think you do a good job of giving a basic definition of the topic you're discussing, and you're also providing pros and cons which gives a natural and balanced description of it.

Tone and Balance: Like mentioned before, the fact that you give both the benefits and the disadvantages of public procurement gives a balanced perspective of it. You are not trying to promote one side over the other. Also, your tone is neutral which is also beneficial for the overall quality of the text.

Sources: You use multiple sources which is very good, seeing that you have used several sources continuously throughout the text straightens the credibility and feeds to the neutrality of the text.

Organization: I think you have a well-organized text, you start with a short introduction/lead and then go into the benefits following the disadvantages. It's easy to follow and clear in its message.

Image and Media: -

Overall Impression: I think you have a good contribution to the article, you have a lot of sources and a neutral presentation of the information. The next step note you have at the end is a good idea to expand your contribution further, but overall I think you have done a good job.