User talk:Matinhomafar/sandbox

As a whole, the article is structured really well and provides a lot of up-to-date information. In the first section of "History", I think it could be useful to expand on some of OpenGov's past projects/campaigns before 2021. The paragraph on "Across America" is well detailed, and it could be useful to change some of the previous paragraphs to a similar structure that centers around important campaigns and projects OpenGov has done in the past. This edit could give readers more context about OpenGov and its development over time. The article also does a good job on using an encyclopedic tone. The only part that could be rewritten to sound a little more neutral is in the "Counties" section-- the phrase "OpenGov's ever-growing list of clients" seems a little unnecessary, and could be interpreted as sounding biased towards the company. Cadencehsu (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Cadencehsu

Peer review
Hi,

Your contributions to the OpenGov article look really good! They definitely talk about a lot of things that are not covered in the original article like the "Across America" campaign and its business relationships with cities like Scranton, PA. These are really great additions that add a lot to the history part of OpenGov and also help inform the reader more on what OpenGov actually does as an organization. Therefore, your article contributions seem very much on topic and adds a lot to what the current OpenGov article is talking about.

The contributions also appear well-referenced as you frequently make use of in-text citations throughout the article. A lot of the points you make have in-text citations informing the reader where that information came from, so this is really well-done. However, I'd just be a bit cautious about your references themselves though. A lot of the references in the bibliography appear to come from OpenGov directly themselves, which could be considered a biased source. Finding some more articles from trusted academic sources or news sources like the New York Times would definitely make your bibliography appear more credible! I do not think this is a significant issue as the way you use the OpenGov sources is just stating facts like what financial deals OpenGov has made and you are not trying to persuade the reader about anything.

Going off that point on not trying to persuade the reader about anything, your article contributions' tone is also well done. It appears very neutral and objective so it sounds like a Wikipedia article should. You are not drawing any conclusions but simply providing facts about CalFresh, so great job here! When you're making future additions to your contributions make sure to keep up this neutral, objective tone!

Overall though, great job with these article contributions! The CalFresh article is going to be a lot better for it!

Jeffrie w (talk) 02:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)