User talk:Eungjeonglee/VR Systems

Peer Review
First off, I would like to say great job on the article on VR systems, especially since it seems like there is no article on VR systems itself in Wikipedia, and this topic itself is very intriguing. That being said, there are a couple of pointers that you could use as you work on your article.

In the lead section, where you introduce VR systems, I felt that you could have described a bit about what exactly VR systems is, and went slightly beyond the fact that VR systems is a provider of election technology and software. This sentence felt somewhat vague, and for someone who does not have much experience in the civic technology realm, it would help if some further clarification is on what exactly VR systems those and some concrete description. Although you do mentions what products VR systems offers in the "Products" section, I felt that you could summarize that information in a concise way in your lead section, since that is a key component of VR systems.

In addition, I did thoroughly enjoy your content, specifically in the "History" and "Product" sections. One piece of advice though - I felt that you could have put the Russia Section into a separate "Controversies" or "Attacks" section. Given that VR systems could be controversial since it provides election technology, a separate section could be useful for future edits. Besides that, I felt there was no issue with the structure, and everything flowed smoothly throughout your article.

Regarding the balance so far of the article, I felt as if most of the article was balanced well, but perhaps once you have the chance, you could add more in the products section. Since VR systems is part of a relatively new field, the products section could be expanded on. In addition, although the "History" section does not carry that much weight compared to the "Products" section, in the "History" section, I felt as if you could add more on how exactly this product has been used.

Lastly, the article felt encyclopedic, in the sense that the article was strictly factual and I did not feel as if I was being persuaded onto one perspective regarding VR systems. In addition, you seemed to vary your sources throughout your article and not just focus on one or two sources, and all the sources seemed to work and were reliable. One point to note would be that underneath the last three subsections of the "Products" sections there are no references, leading to unsourced statements, and I would suggest adding citations to back up these statements.

Overall though, great article, and I look forward to reading the final product!

--GoBears243 (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review (by Justin Crouch)
- The information in the intro paragraph and the history paragraph that states, "VR Systems was founded in Florida in 1992", seems a bit redundant especially since they come right after another.

- The format at the beginning would be better improved if the "russian targets" came after the paragraphs that explore the products made by the company. Since you introduce the company, it seems more logical to expand on that with the products paragraph, and then dive into the topic regarding russia afterwards. I do understand why the paragraph is there since the section is title "History", and technically it makes sense, but this was just some food for thought.

- There are references in the first few paragraphs but none for the last paragraphs regarding the products, so a few citations would improve the credibility of your statements.

- The following sentence in the "EViD electronic pollbook" section would be better off split into different sentences, currently its a run on and theres too much to read in one sentence. "The EViD electronic pollbook, short for Electronic Voter Identification, is available as a tablet, an all-in-one station or customized for an existing device, more than 14,000 EViDs were in use during the 2016 elections in eight U.S. states: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia.[1]" I would instead change it to something like "The EViD electronic pollbook, short for Electronic Voter Identification, is available as a tablet, an all-in-one station or customized for an existing device. More than 14,000 EViDs were in use during the 2016 elections in eight U.S. states: California, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, New York, Virginia, and West Virginia.[1]" I split the sentence into two after you explained what the device was.

- Otherwise the article is solid, I like the concise introductory section and the neutral tone taken throughout the article. The links that I tried out worked as well.

Peer review of article
Hi, here are some suggestions for improving this article. First, the flow of information may read better if the information on the Russian Target incident is placed after the product list for the company. The reasoning for this change in structure is that an overview of the products offered by VR Systems may help the reader better understand what VR Systems does before they read on current events related to VR Systems. Second, more information for the ELM and VR Tower products offered by this platform may help the reader understand the entirety of what VR Systems is. Currently, the article focuses on explaining EViD electronic poll book and VoterFocus with far more information than the other two services this platform provides. Lastly, almost all the sources check out as credible and accurate, but the citation for The Intercept is measured as left-leaning.(1) It may not be compromising to this source but maybe using another source in its place that has more credibility could ensure this article is viewed as neutral. Amarjb (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review (By Yzhang7)
Whose work are you reviewing: Eungjeonglee

Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eungjeonglee/VR_Systems

Link to the current version of the article: VR Systems

My Feedback

Lead: Very clear and strong lead section. Easy for readers to understand the breakdown of the article "VR systems."

Content: Great summary of the founding of VR systems in the "First draft" section. If possible, add the specific services and user groups of VR systems at the end of this section, since it will help the reader to better understand the nature of the provider. Although the word choices in the "Products" section seem professional, it may be more helpful to provide explanations or context for certain technical words such as what is "election worker training", "precinct look-up", and "poll worker management."

Tone and Balance: Well-written text.

Sources and Reference: This article has mostly reliable sources. However, be careful with the source "www.vrsystems.com" since it is an official website that will be considered as a primary source.

Organization: The timeline under the "History" section is straightforward and easy to follow. However, consider moving the "Russian target" around or rename the section, since it may cause confusion on the focus of the article.

Overall impression: Impressive first draft. Clear structure and a great selection of resources. Improvements would be content revision and adding more detailed explanations.

Yzhang7 (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)