User:Tasmia.r/Participatory budgeting/Bryankjh 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)
 * Tasmia.r
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Tasmia.r/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No, the author is making edits to other sections of article instead
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No that Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The Lead seems to be the proper length.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added talks about the results of a specific study regarding participatory budgeting.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes the content is up-to-date and was written in the last five years.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No, there is not 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?
 * The article does not deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is made neutral by adding a Criticism section where the author talks about potential arguments against participatory budgeting.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There are no claims that are heavily biased, and the two sections offer two different viewpoints.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The criticism section is noticeably shorter than the rest of the article, which may lead to people perceiving the section as underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the content is properly cited throughout the article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources are thorough but this is something that can also be expanded further.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are current and up-to-date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, there is a diverse spectrum of authors and publications in this article. There are no historically marginalized individuals.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Conciseness is one aspect that the content can be improved. It is easy to read but there are sentences that can be shortened and concised.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, the content does not 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?
 * I think the article's original structure of having the outcomes section within the history section does not make that much sense. I think one thing that the author can consider is including a section called "methods" above the outcomes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content has added and improved the overall quality of the article. The contributions offer a more descriptive description of some of the examples of participatory budgeting and its experimentation.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is that it adds a perspective on the criticisms and it is well cited throughout all the paragraphs.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think one way this article can be improved is if the author adds a "methods" section in front of the outcomes section so that there is an added sense of coherence and organization throughout the article.