User talk:Krmaya/sandbox

Peer Review
PEER REVIEW - OPERATION CAR WASH

SUMMARY

I think it is good that you want to add information as the current article throws a lot of facts at the reader which gets a bit overwhelming in my opinion, especially right at the beginning. The page right now seems like it is better suited to people who already know about the Scandal than people who have never heard about it.

Critique:

1 - expand on the methods used when you talk about the prosecution. As someone who is not used to "US-style plea bargaining" methods, I do not understand the relevance of the presence of that in the summary. Is it controversial to used those methods? Why is that different than Brazilian methods? How is that going to impact the investigation?

2 - the source for: "Judge Sergio Moro, has been widely supported by the public, though the legality of his methods has at times been questioned. However, 92.5% of his decisions have been maintained" talks about the speed of the proceedings/trial more so than about the actual behavior of the judge. Maybe it could be interesting to add that argument?

EFFECT ON PETROBRAS

Critique: all the information that you want to add is critical to the article BUT I do not think it belongs to "effect on Petrobras" because it talks about larger in-country consequences. Maybe you could add "domestic effects" then keep the subsection "effect on Petrobras" and then add economic, political...

1 - over 100.000 jobs have been lost needs to be developed. It sounds like you mean 100.000 people have lost their jobs because they were corrupt and not because OF corruption

2 - same with economic growth, it needs to be developed, is the corruption scandal really what impacted the economic growth of Brazil??

REPERCUSSIONS OUTSIDE BRAZIL

I support the option of clarifying the implications of politicians from other countries, it would help the reader to understand the magnitude of the scandal. I really like the idea of adding more examples from other countries.

You could also add maybe international reactions to the scandal. I'm surprised because I haven't really heard about this although it looks like a large-scale issue. Have other countries imposed sanctions? have other world leaders / international organizations reacted to it?

DOMESTIC SENTIMENTS

I think that section could be useful on the page because "public opinion" is a weird choice of words = it implies the use of polls which can be biased / represent very small-scaled opinions. Domestic sentiments is indeed a better terminology to be objective. The critic side (opposition sentiment that 'the investigation has gone too far') is also a very good and interesting idea because it would cover both sides of the spectrum of the "domestic sentiment" although it would need to be very well supported by objective sources because it seems like it can be misinterpreted very easily.

DILMA ROUSSEFF / SERGIO MORO

I think it would be definitely useful to add a brief overview because the impeachment seems like a critical consequence of the scandal. There is a section "2014 presidential campaign Dilma Rousseff" so maybe add a subtitle = consequence of the Petrobras scandal on her political career? It would become confusing to talk about her again in another section. Or maybe you could move this section under something else and regroup all information on Dilma Rousseff's political career during/after the scandal.

I do not think that you need to make up for the page for Sergio Moro but you could include a brief summary of why this judge was picked? what has he added to the scandal from his persona/prosecution style? In the summary, it talks about his independence and how he was able to affect "untouchable politicians" so it is definitely interesting to talk about it a bit more.

OVERALL

> Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

See peer review

> Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I didn't feel any particular bias while reading the article.

> Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

See peer review

> Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Yes, the citations work. Some of them are in Portuguese which makes it harder to check it because of the language barrier.

> Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Yes each fact is supported by an appropriate and reliable reference, some of them are from journalistic sources which can be biased sometimes (as we extensively went through in class), yet the article doesn't portray any obvious bias.

> Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

As it is still an ongoing trial/investigation, as I said previously in my review, it would be interesting to add new developments, yet nothing major seems to be missing.

Mj.tolboom (talk) 20:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review - Kashif Ahmed
This draft adds a great amount of detail to the incomplete Operation Car Wash article. It is a recent event so there should definitely be more comprehensive of a Wikipedia article. It assesses the unbalanced sections on the page. In the summary section, the information about the conviction statistics are quite important. The impact of the corruption scheme is significant, so the numbers on job losses and money lost that were added were interesting to read about.

There are some parts of this draft that seem more like an evaluation, but I understand that it is so you can come back to this later on. Changing the links to citations and combining your points to paragraphs would improve the impact of your additions. There is work to do with grammar, as there are uncapitalized sentences and informal statements. I would definitely be interested to read about the public opinion section you propose at the end.

Regarding relevance, I'm not sure if the economic growth statistic belongs in this article. Is it linked to the scandal? The other two sections proposed I think could be relevant but just information on how the scandal is linked to Dilma's impeachment and protests. I like the addition to Peru repercussions, because the president resigning because of corruption links to the scandal is also relevant. The Ecuador statement would also be useful. For the effect on Petrobas, maybe you can add more information on changes that happened in the company afterwards.

The references are mostly reliable and trusted news sources. I couldn't open The Washington Post and NY Times links because they are not free, but I'm not sure if that's a problem. I don't see why the Google link after $40 billion in losses is included. Every addition is appropriately referenced, with up to date sources.

For bias and neutrality, the news sources could be biased, but it is hard to tell. The article additions are neutral which is great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashif.sa96 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Manuel Balan
Overall, this is shaping up well. This is a difficult topic to work on, of course, as the issue is very much ongoing. That said, there's already some academic work on the case that you should definitely incorporate. I agree with the comments provided above, particularly the points raised by Marion. Be careful with tone and with how much information you assume the reader already has. Also, you may want to avoid spreading yourself too thin by focusing on fewer sections but going more in depth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 15:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)