User talk:Amarjb/Civic technology companies

Peer Review

Hello! First off, great article on civic technology companies! I was intrigued by your article, and wish I could keep on reading! That being said, I have some pointers for feedback!

In the lead section, you mention in the lead section new technology initiatives. Instead, I would retain the introduction section in the original civic technologies section, and instead maintain the fact that there is a "New Tech Initiatives" section. In addition, I would add more underneath the "new tech initiatives section", since there is no information about what civic technologies or civic technology companies are working in these respective locations that you mention. As a reader, I would want this section to be a bit more specific, and would not retain much information from this section. In this new subsection, which you remove from your lead section, not only will the structure of your article will also become better, but will also become more clear and concise.

Besides the structure of your lead section, I found the rest of the article well structured and easy to follow. However, I would add more to the lead section of the article, and possibly a "History" section as well once you get the time to expand on this article. Adding to the lead section would clarify the definition of civic technology and civic technology companies. In addition, before you list the civic technology companies, I would add a "History" section, detailing the rise of civic technology companies and how they came about, to provide more structure to your article. Some other sections that you can consider including are the "controversies", and you could also create subsections of various civic technology companies. For example, you could add a section titled "Companies Focused on Elections", "Companies Focused on Campaigns", etc. to add more structure and content to your article. You could create possible subsections within these sections for controversies, history, etc - just some thoughts on how to improve the structure of your article.

Besides the structure and balance of your article, I found the tone to be neutral and encyclopedic. Your statements were sourced and your sources were varied and reliable, so I have no feedback in these respective areas.

Overall, great job on your article! I look forward to reading the final version!

--GoBears243 (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review (by Justin Crouch)

- There should be a colon after "New civic tech initiatives" in the first section, so it should be formatted

New civic tech initiatives:

Baltimore county is working on a dashboard for citizens to view traffic stops online.[1] New Mexico is likely to spend 1 billion to develop internet infrastructure across the state.[1] - "After it's use in 2008 in Kenya, this civic technology was used for global crises." has a grammatical error, the apostrophe in "its" should be removed.

After its use in 2008 in Kenya, this civic technology was used for global crises.

- The third sentence under the Rave Mobile Safety subsection is missing a comma after "Covid 19". Should be formatted as follows.

During COVID-19, Rave Mobile Safety expanded its current collaborations with public safety agencies in every state.

- The article draft does an excellent job in providing several citations and remaining neutral throughout, with the exception to a few grammatical error pointed out in this peer review, the article has a nice "encyclopedic" tone to it.

Peer Review (By Yzhang7)

Whose work are you reviewing: Amarjb

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Amarjb/Civic technology companies

Link to the current version of the article: Civic technology companies

My Feedback

Lead: The lead section is precise and straight to the point, which is about new initiatives in Baltimore and New Mexico. However, it would be more efficient if it includes and reflects the content listed below in "Recent Civic Technology companies," which is about companies in Brookline, Kenya, and San Francisco, etc.

Content: For "Ushahidi", the last sentence says "donations from many organizations." If possible, specify which organizations it receives funds from. For "Recidiviz", there is a quotation "recommended more than 44,000 people for early release." If possible, it would be better to paraphrase or summarize it into a new sentence than adding a direct quote to portray this data.

Tone and Balance: The tone of this article is neutral. There is slightly a lack of connection between each sentence in a paragraph. To improve the connection between sentences, reorganize the order of sentences to make each companies' paragraph follow the same flow of logic. Example structure would be: the nature of the company, location, services, core value.

Sources and Reference: The sources provided are abundant. Double-check the reliability of sources from "Crunchbase" and "Businesswire.com." Also, make a note of the fact that the original article has a flag on "relying too much on primary sources." Organization: The new content has a clear organization that is easy to follow.

Overall impression: Great addition overall and reader-friendly. Provided a great number of facts and services of civic technology companies. Improvement areas would be the revision of lead section and change of sentence orders.

Yzhang7 (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Response to peer reviews

Thank you all for the peer reviews! Here are the ways I will implement the changes GoBears243 mentioned. First, I will ensure the lead section of this sandbox article mirrors the introduction on the original civic tech companies wiki page. Second, I will expand upon the categories of civic tech that I have in my sandbox. Although I see the value in adding a history section to give a background on Civic Tech companies, there are many other civic tech wiki pages that have such information. Therefore, I will make sure these wiki articles that have history of Civic tech companies have embedded links in my sandbox page for the reader's reference. I may add a controversies section, but this depends on whether other wiki pages already cover these controversies or not.

Here are the ways I will implement the changes Justin Crouch mentioned. First, I will add a colon after New Civic tech initiatives. Second, I will remove the "it's" grammer error you mentioned. Third, I will make sure the third sentence under the Rave Mobile Safety is changed for better clarity and correct grammer.

Here are the ways I will implement the changes Yzhang7 mentioned. First, I will add a link to the draft I'm reviewing and the current version of the article. Second, I will incorporate some basic information from the sections after the lead section into the lead section for better clarity. Third, I will make sure not to quote material and instead paraphrase. Fourth, I will reorder sentences for more organization and reading clarity with specific consideration for the structure you mentioned: nature of the company, location, services, core value. Lastly, I will make sure the sources Crunchbase and Businesswire.com are credible and that many of my sources are not primary sources to address the issues with the original wiki page I'm editing.Amarjb (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)