User:TherealLiamplsc308/Participatory planning/American Lautaro Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing TheRealliamplsc308's work on the article "communicative planning".


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:TherealLiamplsc308/Communicative planning
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Communicative planning

Evaluate the drafted changes
I like the lead. I especially appreciate how quick and to the point it is. I think maybe a couple more details could be useful? Like maybe something about the sections. But, do not lose that spirit of being quick and to the point because I like it. Also, I think that the second half of the first sentence "respects all positions" doesn't feel super neutral. If some grounded research is being cited about respect etc. then sure, but I would maybe soften the language by writing "tries to respect" or "aims to respect", just to make it sound more neutral.

I like historical context and theory sections. I read a bit of the original article, and I think it was a good decision to split this into 2 parts. I especially like how you describe blueprint planning, because for people unfamiliar with the topic, it is good to understand that communicative planning arises as a response to the alternative. I will say, I think theoretical framework is pretty long, and while it is definitely useful to explain the reasoning behind the process, I think it may be a disservice to the article that it takes so much reading to get to the "Communicative Process and Tools" and "Case Studies" sections, which I think are super interesting.

I really like the Communicative process section, it was definitely something I wanted to know and answered a lot of questions that were appearing in my head. I think maybe some more practical information could be useful? Like, do people vote in meetings and are things decided by majority vote or unanimous? Is this defined by the theory or open to interpretation? Are there any specific methods by which people should run meetings that have been established? Definitely some of this practicality is provided by the case studies section, the question of voting is one I came away with.

I like the case study section, if you want to add any more details (specifically about voting mechanism ahahahhaha), that'd be great but overall I think it's pretty strong.

I also very much appreciate the challenges and critiques section, I definitely think it adds to the my understanding and the neutrality of the article.

I think your contributions have definitely made the article easier to read and more complete. Particularly, splitting history and theory makes a lot of sense, as well as describing the alternative (blueprint planning). The few comments I made are definitely small, so great work!