User talk:CaroWesley/sandbox

Peer Review

Overall: good job on the first draft! I enjoyed leading the artcile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudaimran (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 March 2018 (UTC) - Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? In the draft, everything seems to be relevant and nothing distracted me. However, more information needs to be added (which makes sense, it’s only a draft).

In the section- Corruption Allegations by Political Party- good information on how the two parties are engaged in corrupt activities. I think more can be added and citation is required. Additionally, more examples of corrupt allegations can be written.

In the section, Anti-Corruption Law in Taiwan, you have mentioned some laws established to eradicate corruption. However, I think you should mention some more, in terms of the timeline, you mentioned one legislation that was passed on 1963 and the other that was passed 2011. Maybe mention some legislation that was passed within that time period.

- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is not biased in any way. The author gives equal attention to the alleged corrupt activities of the major parties. No claims or facts seem to be heavily biased toward a particular position. - Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? None of the viewpoints are overrepresented. The sections in the article are not underrepresented, however, some information needs to be added, especially in the anti-corruption law section. - Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? In terms of the citations, the author linked the pages within the section from where most of the information was added. However, the first footnote does not work and needs to be updated. The second one works and it directed me to the page where it was taken from. - Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? The information presented in the articles comes from rcomele sources. Most of them comes from other wiki pages and they are cited within the text. - Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? Maybe you can mention some social and economic costs of corrupt activities and how it might be hindering their growth and development.

Peer Review (Shannon.chensee (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)) Good job so far Caroline! See my comments based on Wikipedia’s criteria below:

Lead The lead section does a good job of defining Black Gold, but could be further expanded on to briefly introduce the other sections that the article addresses, such as Anti-Corruption Law in Taiwan. You could also explain whether Black Gold refers both petty or grand scale corruption, as it is currently unclear whether it has to be high profile to be considered Black Gold. I would also suggest explaining why this term is important, to help inform the reader why they should read it.

Structure The sections are well organized and flow well.

Balanced Coverage Currently, each section’s length is equal to the sub-topic’s importance. However, there is room for additional headings, such as Origins, and need for something to connect the Corruption Allegations with Anti-Corruption Law, such as Causes and Consequences, to understand why certain legislation has been enacted. Currently, the article appears one sided in citing the criticisms of the political parties, but it would be interesting to know if/how the parties defend themselves against such allegations.

Neutral Content There are quite a few instances of non-neutral or subjective phrases, such as “notorious”, “widely attributed”. The use of passive voice which makes claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people…eg. “frequently been criticized” (by whom?) and require citation. Currently, there is some balance in presenting both positive and negative information, as there is mention of the Anti-Corruption Laws. If there are any success stories from implementing these laws, this might be a good addition to the article.

Reliable Sources The references used so far come from reliable sources. However, this article requires more detailed, in-text citation, as there are blocks of text that are not cited. Further, the first reference link does not work, and should be replaced.

Manuel Balan Review

This is a good start, but the draft needs significant more work. I agree with the comments above, especially the ones from Shannon about the balance among sections and the lack of sources. The lead needs to be significantly improved, and you need to also think about how to make the article flow in a clearer and more comprehensive way. You should add more sources and revise the links and formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 14:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)