User:Sourpatchkid10/Civic nationalism/Dolly City Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Sourpatchkid10)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sourpatchkid10/Civic_nationalism?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Civic nationalism

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? It seems that the lead is similar to the existing one, except for the first paragraph, which doesn't apear in the new lead.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? no
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? no
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? overly detailed. It might be better to make the lead shorter (1-2 paragraphs) and to move the examples (the Turkish constitution, etc.), the discussions (Habermas, etc.) to other sections of the article. Also, if it is a lead, it doesn't need the title "What is civic nationalism". The first paragraph of the existing lead is actually good and concise and I think it is worth preserving: Civic nationalism, also known as democratic nationalism and liberal nationalism, is a form of [[nationalism that adheres to traditional liberal values of freedom, tolerance, equality, individual rights and is not based on ethnocentrism. Civic nationalists often defend the value of national identity by saying that individuals need it as an upper identity in order to lead meaningful, autonomous lives and that democraticpolities need national identity to function properly.]] Remember that you don't need to change every word in the article, but to identify what is missing/requires revisions and work on that.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? from what I can see, you expended the critique section and you created a new sub section that deals with examples of civic nationalism (based on existing content). These are good directions, but they require development.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I'd recommend search for additional recent articles (such as Yale Tamir's 2019 article)
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The new content still requires development
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? not really

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? From what I see, there were no new sources added to the article.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? I am sure more recent scholarship could be added
 * Are the sources current? N/A
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? N/A
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? N/A

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? N/A
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? N/A
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Making a new section entitled "examples of civic nationalism" was a good choice. However, the beginning of this section doesn't belong to it. It refers to different thinkers (Renan, Kohn) and not to examples. It should be integrated to a different section, such as "History of the Concept"

Images and Media - N/A
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 for 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? N/A
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The revised article is still in initial state, but the idea to expand on the criticism and the organizational changes you made should work well.
 * How can the content added be improved? At this point, I suggest focusing on one subsection and developing it rather than making small additions to several subsections. In addition, you can edit the lead, making it shorter and move what's too specific to other parts of the article.