Talk:Open by default
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Liv's Peer Review
[edit]What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? Despite being on the shorter side right now, it is clear that the article is going in the right direction. You have used reputable sources and provide an excellent intro into Open by Default. The article also has the encyclopedia-like style required for Wikipedia and reads well. The sources provided are properly cited.
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Obviously, the article is not done yet so there isn't much to critique content-wise. Instead, some of the suggestions I could provide to improve the article include:
- Look for countries where Open by Default is in the works/discussions (if any)
- Any critiques of Open by Default
- More of a question: Is Open By Default used in any other scenarios besides Open Government? Like open source software or anything?
- Perhaps outline some organizations involved with the Open by Default movement
- If there's any key distinguishers between Open by Default and Open Government
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Overall, it's an excellent start to an excellent-sounding article. The most important step towards improvement in this case would just be to add more information and plenty of good sources! Gooddigitalcitizen (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Cappa's Peer Review
[edit]What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?
The article is very objective and concise in its account of what being “Open by Default” is. Although your article is unfinished, what you have so far is really good. You have a good reference, and you have hyperlinks in the appropriate places. The definition provided for what being Open by Default is is descriptive and easily understandable.
What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article?
Look for a few more examples of countries that employ the policy of being Open by Default. Having a few more examples would enrich your article. Also, perhaps include some examples of countries that claim to be open, but are not really (i.e. Russia).
What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
What you have so far is really good, but you definitely need to build on what you have. Same suggestion as Liv^: add some more sources. You’ll probably want between 8-12 sources in order to have a richer article. Also, perhaps add some pictures, infographics, and other various illustrations. Otherwise it is objective, concise, and good!