Talk:Olan Jermaine Williams Vs. State of Oregon

Untitled
I thought the lead section of the article was detailed and gave a good overview of the article. I thought the article’s structure was could use some work. Some sections seemed to be too long or too short, or even missing entirely. I thought the content was written without bias toward a particular point of view, but could have used more information a sources.TribstyAnn (talk) 20:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Feedback
I thought the lead section of the article was clear and easy to understand and gives a good overview of the article. The articles structure was clear. I thought the content gave more weight to important viewpoints and less weight to fringe ideas! Maybe give a little bit more detail on specific events of the effect the trial had after. Justinakoutsouris (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

More feedback
This article is a good start! For me as a reader, the History section didn't flow very well. For example, in one sentence, it talks about the exclusion clause in the Oregon Constitution; in the next, it talks about Olan Williams' master's degree.

Additionally, the lead section also talks about homophobia playing a role in this case, but doesn't cite any sources for this assertion. -- Sandbergja (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

QS 262 Review Article Feedback
I thought the lead section of the article was [x] Clear and easy to understand [ ] Detailed [ ] Fragmented [ ] Had mistakes [ ] Needs to be tied together better [x] Gives a good overview of the article The lead section of the article is written very well. It is clear, it provides enough information about the topic, but it doesn’t overflow the reader with details that are not important to the overall topic.

I thought the article’s structure was [x] Clear [x] Had several headings and subheadings arranged chronologically or by themes [ ] Had images and diagrams when appropriate [x] sections about an important aspect of the topic are shorter than sections about a less important aspect The structure was laid out in a way that makes sense. There were no images or diagrams, but I don’t really think the page needs any, necessarily. There was a good emphasis on the components of the topic that made it significant.

I thought the content [x] Covered many aspects of the topic [x] Gave more weight to important viewpoints and less weight to fringe ideas. [ ] Included value statements like “the best” or “the most important” [ ] Was written without bias toward a particular point of view [x] cited reliable sources throughout the article and as much as possible [ ] included references to unnamed sources of information, such as "some people say," or "many believe"? [x] includes citation information from reliable publishers [ ] includes citations from questionable websites or publishers who might like to push an agenda [ ] includes euphemisms Reliable sources are cited throughout the article, the information is consistent, the important parts of the topic are covered more heavily than less important parts, and there are multiple aspects of the topic that are covered. I think in some areas there could be an improvement grammatically just to help the article flow a little easier, but overall it’s good. Mdbar (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Some More Feedback
I thought the lead was a good introduction to the article. It gave me a clear idea of what I was going to be reading. I thought the article organization was clear. Your history was separate from the rest of the article and it was clear why that was a good way of categorizing the article. I thought the content was direct and straightforward, I feel like there could be more details added to the history section. But the links were helpful and convenient. This looks legit. Lbkatielb (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)