User talk:Miawach/Civic Technology

I think it is great that you’re including the new addition of Nepal in the article, because it makes the article more up-to-date and relevant. In the “Citizen-led Initiatives” section, I would add what their mission is. In other words, word it in such a way that the mission is clearly stated and is neutral in its tone. The sentence about the Fukushima seems out of place, but I see why you would want to include it. If you can find a way a certain citizen-led initiative used twitter, I would definitely add that to make sure you stay on topic. I would also include “and” in-between “…file complaints and address issues regarding items like visas and taxation.” (Last sentence of “citizen-led initiatives). So don’t feel overwhelmed, you’re on the right track and are actually in a great position. I would also recommend offsetting the non-essential clauses you have enclosed in parentheses with commas or em-dashes (—) to make it more cohesive, after all I think you have great information in the parentheses that are worth including in the whole sentence. For example, you could do the following: “…the primary use of Hanko — a seal used in lieu of a signature on printed documents — to digital verifications…” I would also Introduce the final sentence like so “The government plans to focus on the digitization aspect of its functions by implementing more sophisticated systems…” I would then start a new sentence for “The transference from the primary…” so make that a new sentence. In the Nepal section, I would replace “strives” and “lively” with other words because they could be mis-interpreted as biased. The use of information is great and the references are clear. The overall tone is also neutral and academic, which solidifies the article as a whole. Given how little time you’ve had to work on this, you’ve done a great job. I’ve just pointed out a few “picky” things that I believe will make your article better than what it already is. All the best and good luck! Matinhomafar (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Overall, the article is very well written and structured effectively. In the "Citizen-led initiatives" section, you could write a general sentence on citizen-led initiatives to introduce the section before diving into initiatives like Code for Japan and JP-Mirai. The sentence "While civic technology initiatives in Japan" under "Government-led initiatives" could also be slightly re-written to have a more encyclopedic tone-- in "..COVID-19 pandemic encouraged the Japanese government to realize the importance of digital transformation", you could say that the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged the Japanese government to transition to digitalization ( as oppose to writing that they "realized"). Nice job! Cadencehsu (talk) 00:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Cadencehsu

Peer review
Hi Mia,

Really well-written article! The structure of your article is well-done and it is organized in a comprehensible way. Also, all your sources look good and your frequent use of in-text citations does a great job of showing readers where each point comes from and that the article is researched. Overall, your tone seems quite neutral and unbiased as well. Though I would air on the side of caution in your "Government-led Initiatives" section in which you state that "the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged the Japanese government to realize the importance of digital transformation". While of course mention that the pandemic pushed Japan towards digitization, it sounds a bit like you are trying to convince the reader of an argument when you say "the importance of". Wikipedia articles have to be encyclopaedic in nature and not convince the reader of anything, only give them the facts so they can form their own opinions. Similarly in your "Citizen-led initiatives" section, you state, "As a result of OSM, the aid relief and reconstruction of the 2015 earthquake in Nepal (magnitude of 7.3) was a much more easily navigated process". Instead of saying "a much more easily navigated process" which sounds potentially biased and argumentative, you should just give examples of how the process became easier. The user can, based on the examples you give, make their own conclusions on whether or not the process became easier or harder to navigate.

Otherwise, your article looks really good! Keep it up and I look forward to reading the completed article!

Jeffrie w (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)