User:Shrino/Open Government Initiative/Melissawwang 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? Shrino
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Shrino/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


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

Lead evaluation
I think the Lead has been properly updated to reflect the new content. The beginning of each section does a good job of including an introduction sentence instead of starting each sub-heading without any precursors. There are new additions into the article that includes new information from a wide variety of sources that contribute to the overall meaning of Open Government Initiative.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes

Content evaluation
The content is relevant towards the topic. I think you did a very good job organizing the new additions such as the background. I enjoyed reading the earliest influences for the Open Government Initative such as the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act Amendments. I appreciate how you aded more recent information even past President Obama's presidency as well.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


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

Tone and balance evaluation
The information you added was very informational and non-partisan. I would perceive this article additions to have a good tone that refrained from including any bias. I think in the philosophy sub-heading, you should start off with "Open Government Data" instead of the acronym to clarify readers that need to access a specific section of the article.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content 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
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources you included were very good and credible. I appreciate that you included sources that were from governmental websites such as the Pedro Prieto-Martin source to define the Open Government beyond open data and transparency. I like how you included a Crunchbase link as well!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation
You did a very good job at including well-organized sections in order to delineate the topics you will be talking about in the new content you created. I really like how you started off with the overall review of the Open Government Initiative and afterwards included the background of how it was created. I appreciate how you included the background/how this was ideated, and then contemporary applications towards the Open Government Initiative. Not only that, I think the fact that you include similar applications and programs to Open Government Initiative is great to have a multi-faceted approach to describing what this project is.

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? N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/A

Images and media evaluation
==== I think you could have added more infographics, perhaps if you were able to include an infographic about how the Open Government Initiative was created (a timeline or t-chart perhaps), that would contribute a better depiction of how the Initiative was brought to life and how it has continued to grow in contemporary time. Otherwise, adding a some sort of picture would make this more interesting! Just make sure if you were to add a graphic or image, make sure it follows the Wikipedia guidelines. ====

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 the content added a significant contribution to the previous quality of the Open Government Initiative. Previously, there was only a short stub of an article talking about the brief history of who created the policy and the philosophy. Therefore, Shrin did a really great job of adding more value into the article and also did a great job of including how the Open Government Initiative continues to make newer impacts towards the government as well as similar projects that have potential for growth as well.