User talk:Claradm/sandbox

Peer Review for Open Government Article
Great outline for changes so far! I like your intention to provide a greater variety of examples of open government practices, especially globally. I agree that the broad "Content" section needs a major overhaul and reorganization. You also mention a lack of neutrality, which I believe is one of the article's major flaws, even beyond the section concerning Obama. The vast majority of the article seems to champion open government, and though that is likely the sentiment presented in most of the sources, it is still possible to present such sentiments neutrally, so I would definitely make it a priority to fix this issue. I also noticed that there are some sizable sections that do not have any citations, so I would say it's important to either look up sources for said information or challenge these sections on the talk page. Overall, your plan looks good so far, but it would be easier to critique if you had some intended edits pasted in your sandbox already. JackRubenacker (talk) 07:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review of Open Government
Your outline addresses some of the main concerns that caused the article to be flagged, such as lack of sources and lack of subjectivity. I think it would be wise to try to target the parts of the article that are not neutral like the part that heavily praises Obama. If you could find open government initiatives and advocates from the other side of the aisle and even the world it would help it seem less biased. There are some links in the article that lead to Wikipedia pages that do not exist, in this case, make sure that those topics are sufficiently cited externally. Overall I think your possible sources are promising especially the open government of Indonesia. Aurabarrera (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)