Talk:Civic Tech

Length: The article is currently less than 3000 words long. I think the content you have right now is pretty interesting. I would definitely think expanding your civilians in the civil tech section would be a good idea because a lot of the groups you are talking about there are pretty interesting. You could also maybe talk about the intersection of open source software and civil technology. It would be cool to see if any open source projects disapprove of the use of their technologies in government projects or if there’s no conflict at all. Finally, you could potentially include a section about the private and public sector intersection in technology. You mention things like voting technologies in your introductory paragraph. Was that developed by a private company and were there any public concerns about the technology if that's the case?

Structure: The article has an opening paragraph that briefly summarizes the issue. I think the writer did a good job discussing who civic tech is built by and who it serves. Doing this gave me a better understanding of what is considered civic tech and what could potentially fall outside of that definition. The article is broken up by having more than one section. Currently there is a section on the National Day of Civic Hacking and The Civilians of Civil Tech. I personally think that the National Day of Civic Hacking could fall under another subsection, as I think it might not be important enough to justify its own section. I think that it could potentially even be a section under The Civilians of Civil Tech section. Additionally, I would consider renaming the article title to Civic Tech in America. So far it seems like a lot of your content is focussed on the United States. If you wanted to take a more global approach you could add subsections for different continents or countries and talk about how civic tech is used in those regions. The article currently doesn’t have any sources cited. No sources appear in specific sections or in the reference section of the article.

Clarity: You are clear with what they are trying to say for each section and subsection. There is no real ethical concern that is addressed in the article, though. I think the article could benefit from having a controversy section. Alternatively, you could explore some of the concerns associated with already discussed concepts. For example, they mention there being problems with the release of the healthcare.gov website. I think it would be interesting to explore that idea more and the consequences of that failure. They could go into who the failure affected and how they were affected.

Objective Reporting: You do a good job conveying a neutral tone in their writing. I think in the section about term derivation, you can extend that discussion and include more academic sources. I think it would be interesting to learn about the history of the term.

Eashan