Peer Review By Robert Fox Wikipedia principle #1: Comprehensiveness a. Content
• The arrangement of the article thus far does not have the overview as the lead section but with editing and rearrangement the article will be fine. The overview does give clear and useful information regarding the topic of whistleblowing.
• The main points given are private sector whistleblowing, public sector whistleblowing, and ethics of whistleblowing. Furthermore when is it appropriate to be a whistleblower, the legal responsibility and repercussions of whistleblowing and ethical responsibility of people to blow the whistle.
• For the topic I believe there is a reasonably good outline for the topic and the material could be expanded upon.
• I do not see references in the body so much this is an area that could use some clarification as to where exactly the information is being sourced from in the article.
b. Thesis and analytic focus • Yes, the article is targeted at whistleblowing and stays focused on topic.
• Again I see a reference list but nothing in the body or individual sections except for under public sector that does have references and citations.
c. Representativeness • I believe that it does show different perspectives of whistleblowing yet could be expanded upon.
• I do believe the article is open so that decisions of morality and ethics are at the discretion of the whistleblower.
• Yes, the article does clarify and make distinctions appropriately. Such as right or wrong, private sector situations, public sector, and ethical mores.
Wikipedia principle #2: Sourcing
• I am again not seeing in text references So I am not sure where the information and what sources exactly the information is coming from.
• More references are needed in text. Over all, the source material list is sufficient.
• Not that I can tell. I see very few citation references so far work needs to be done to distinguish the source of information in the body of the text.
• Language could be cleaned up as far as proper words and grammar but the overall projection is that I cannot tell where the empirical knowledge is coming from in the body of the text.
• Yes terms like most likely I think should be avoided.
Wikipedia principle #3: Neutrality
• Yes the article has a neutral point of view. The article is not biased leaning toward one perspective or another.
• As far as I can see the article is factual but should refrain from statements like “most likely “.
• Yes the article avoids assertions very well.
• I believe the overall balance is good but could be balanced out a little more.
Wikipedia principle #4: Readability
a. Language
• The entry could be formed a little better and revised for grammar issues.
• Structure and nature are clear yet need to be cleaned up for grammar errors.
• Needs improvement on wording errors and needs proofreading.
• Yes the article is very easy to read and most could understand its content. From a diverse community.
• The language used is common and not over exaggerated.
b. Organization and style
• So far the group has used sub-headings and the overall structure is good. Needs a little better organization. • The focus is clear needs better organization.
• Paragraph structure needs to be improved somewhat.
c. Formatting • Needs better formatting I believe for Wiki. • There are no article references in text. I am not sure which source material goes with what in some places.
• The article needs better section organization, so that overview is not at the bottom.
• There are no links that I can see at this time this could be an area that needs to be addressed. d. Illustrations
• The article at this point has no illustrations.
• No images
• No images
Open-ended Questions
They have highlighted what whistleblowing is and where it is used and why. It gives a clear view of what whistleblowing is and why it is used.
Two improvements that I think could be made is better organization of the article and word usage corrections.
Start a discussion about improving the User:Randzeo/sandbox page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "User:Randzeo/sandbox" page.
