User talk:Melissawwang/sandbox

I think the author did a good job covering multiple aspects of quadratic voting. One suggestion I have is to include more history of quadratic voting, and perhaps also provide more contemporary examples in the modern world. In addition, I thought the criticism of quadratic voting portion is a little confusing. One way to make it less confusing is to define phrases such as buyer margin and liquid buyers. I did like the chart that shows how quadratic voting actually works through increasing opportunity cost. I found the explanation of how quadratic voting works to be very helpful in understanding the concept. Overall, this first draft improvement is good in that it covers important topics and aspects of quadratic voting. Jameswang323 (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)James Wang

Feedback on Article from Shriniket Maddipatla
The organization was great; each section had an equal and appropriate amount of content. No one section had too much content that was overbearing on the rest. Each section felt important, the ordering made sense, and together offered a good range of information on the topic. I really liked the use of the graph to convey the concept of vote-counting; very creative! You also did a really good job maintaining NPOV. I couldn't notice any personal bias leaking through while I read the article. You also did a good job balancing multiple viewpoints without favoring a particular opinion.

Generally, I couldn't find many mistakes; you did a really good job! Your first sentence in the History section could be re-worded, particularly the very first part. I understood what you meant, but it could be made more concise. Also the next sentence, you say "was created by a" and then describe two specific people.

The only other thing I could was in the very first sentence you say that quadratic voting is a system where individuals can vote. I thought you meant anybody at first, but then later I got the feeling it was limited to politicians. I don't know if that was just me misunderstanding, but perhaps you could read through it again and see if you can find instances where you sharpen your word choice to highlight who this would be for.

Shrino (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Editing by Olivia Dey
After reading this article, I was surprised about how much content was already included in the draft. The author did a great job at organizing their article into multiple different sections, but keeping it all cohesive. There are close to no grammatical errors and the sentences are nicely structured with sophisticated vocabulary. The contemporary applications section is slightly confusing because of all the statistics, but the addition of the vote pricing example chart in the prior paragraph helped with my understanding and I thought it was a great addition. I think that the author did a great job on the first draft, and addresses key facts and valuable information that sums up the main ideas of quadratic voting very well. Oliviadey (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Editing by Mervi Tan
I agree with the a lot of the comments that were previously made about this article, including the fact that it was extremely well organized and this made the information that the author provided very easy to follow. There was a lot of new information that I was able to learn about, especially concerning the history of Quadratic Voting and where it was created. Although I did notice some bias when the author claimed that “ideally” governments should mimic what the Colorado House of Representatives. I am not entirely clear on whether you meant that was the ideal way to conduct all forms of voting or just Quadratic Voting. Either way, I would encourage the author to shift away from using biased terms, such as “ideally” but simply state that the use of Quadratic Voting was efficient or implemented smoothly through the Colorado State Government. In the section about the “Concept of Mechanism,” everything was explained very well and clear. I enjoyed the fact that you even included a table to demonstrate visually how it works. I believe that the Wikipedia page itself already has a section concerning how it was used in the Colorado government, so instead adding a new section, perhaps you could merge the two through your writing. Overall, good job! Here's the link to the peer review: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Melissawwang/Quadratic_voting/Mervitan_Peer_Review

Mervitan (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)