User:Sid900/Voatz/VillusionV 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) Sid900
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sid900/sandbox

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?

There does not appear to be any lead in added. Straight off the bat, the user creates subtopics of the different aspects the user will edit in the article. There is a brief description of each of these subtopics which are not presented in the original article and they are not overly detailed, there is just enough information to serve as an introduction for each of these topics. All of these subtopics clearly describes what the additions will talk about.

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?

Of the ten or so articles that the user reported, a number of them are from articles from 2020 so we can assume that the content is up to date and relevant to the topics. Of the topics added, they all address a gap not mentioned in the original article and it talks about a few underrepresented topics that were not touched upon before.

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?

There is an encyclopedia tone which is good, however, with the presence of qualifiers, there is a little bit of bias in the sections related to drawbacks and pros of quadratic voting. However, I think this is very slight and that it is unintentional, it does not seem like the user is deliberately trying to persuade the audience or in favor of a certain position.

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?

A good majority of the sources cited are from the same organization and thus do not show a diverse spectrum of authors. There needs to be a greater variety of different organizations. The sources however are current as they are from 2020 and the links do work. The sources used are through although one of them is another Wikipedia entry.

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?

Yes the content is concise, clear, and easy to read. However I am very confused why in the subtopics there is a section that is in quotes and italics and then a regular print paragraph right under. I thought this could be a one time thing but it is present for almost all of the entries and I do not understand the function of this. Is it plagiarism and the user has intentions to fix it later on? Besides this, it is very well organized with the subtopics and sections and the article is free from gramatiical and spelling errors.

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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

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?

The actual content is very good and informative, however, I am very confused why in the subtopics there is a section that is in quotes and italics and then a regular print paragraph right under. I thought this could be a one time thing but it is present for almost all of the entries and I do not understand the function of this. Is it plagiarism and you have intentions to fix it later on? One thing that needs to be improved upon is the tone of your entry in order to eliminate any potential bias. Overall, there is great organization of your article and clearly laying our your intentions for the article in the beginning is very affective.

-VillusionV