User:Aemoe85/State violence/Chase2424 Peer Review

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Aemoe85

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Aemoe85/State violence

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

State violence

Evaluate the drafted changes

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
• Yes, the Lead has been updated to reflect the additional new content.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
• Yes, the Lead includes an intro sentence that describes the article topic.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
• No, however, there are major sections listed in the Sandbox draft.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
• No, the Lead covers info present or will be updated/added to the article.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
• The Lead works well for the article.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic?
• The content added is relevant to the topic. More information is required to better evaluate relevancy.
• Is the content added up-to-date?
• Added material is up to date.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
• There is missing content for the following sections.

Immigration Policy[edit]

Prison Industrial Complex[edit]

• Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
• Yest, it does deal with an equity gap and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral?
• Yes
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• There isn't enough information to establish a direction.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
• No
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
• No

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
• There is not enough content to determine this. There is one source of information. However, there are several sources on the bibliography page, not in the Sandbox version.
• Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
• Yes, it does seem to reflect the cited sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• The source is thorough.
• Are the sources current?
• The source is current, 2022.
• Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
• Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
• Check a few links. Do they work?
• Some of the links in the Bibliography need to be reformatted. They appear as log ins for the PSU sign on.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
• The material is well-written.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
• Yes, "structural violence that lead to Flint, Michigan having lead-contaminated." Change lead to Flint to "led" to Flint.
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
• Yes, the future content appears to be well-organized.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
• Are images well-captioned?
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
• Yes, the added content does improve the overall quality of the article.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• The original article is very short. The added content helps to contribute to better understanding the topic of state violence.
• How can the content added be improved?
• Check all the links in the Bibliography, reformat links that appear to be PSU Login. Add more information under headers listed in Content review.

Hello and thank you for your review. We have a bit of work to do. The links are something that does need to be fixed. I appreciate the thorough feedback. The review gives much needed guidance.- Skyjay999