User:Ryanliou/Quadratic voting/Lucaskim7 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)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
No changes were made to the lead of the article and I think there is potential for the lead to be changed as the user made significant additions to the overall structure of the article and added substantial information. The lead presented fails to mention the history of the voting procedure and its development in both democratic politics as well as corporate governance, two very important applications that would be of use to a user.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is impressive, especially in its depth and effectiveness in the article. What is most impressive is the breadth of which is being covered - history, development in various parts, and application. However, naturally, when the information is widespread across various topics, it is difficult to hone in on key ideas for certain topics. Furthermore, it is difficult to expand on certain ideas. For example, I think it could be helpful to expand more on the history with people like E. Glen Weyl, or other ideas that may seem a little flushed out.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
There is a clear neutral tone expressed throughout the article, yet one recommendation I have is upholding an encyclopedic tone. As vague as it seems, I think there are certain parts found in for example "Development in Corporate Governance" that may not be expressed in an encyclopedic tone despite it being seemingly obvious. Furthermore, I think there could be a better balance in the applications found throughout the world. Understandably there is a lot of information on Taiwan and there application of quadratic voting but I think there is a lot of potential with that section with maybe even one more country.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The sources used are strong and do a good job of supporting the user's points. The used applies a wide variety of sources and makes sure to keep majority of the sources very current, as the topic itself is relatively current.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation

 * I think organization is the most impressive element of these contributions, as the original article has many flaws in its organization. By adding the section of history, it tries the entire article together and provides a strong flow that the user can easily follow,. Furthermore, there are evident developments that make the relevance of the article ver clear.

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, I think that these contributions drafted are very effective and add lots of value to the article. The original article lacks a lot of information on the history as well as the development of issue in not only the government and politics but also its development of application and where it is being used. The strongest parts fo the user's contributions are the way in which the information is organized, providing a flow that is easy to follow. For future improvements, I think it could be interesting to see more countries in which quadratic voting is being applied in and potentially a larger expansion on certain topics of the ends of the section that feel slightly flushed out.