Talk:Oregon Senate Bill 577

Wikipedia articles usually start with a definition of the subject of the article. Something like, "Oregon State Bill 557 is a bill put forth in Oregon in such and such year by this person/committee. Also, it would make your article less cluttered if you paraphrased more instead of quoting your sources. Lastly you don't have to cite your sources with parentheses since Wikipedia already has an in-text citation function. 22Owen22 (talk) 08:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A reminder that the assignment guidelines wanted three linkes to other Wikipedia articles, and you can do that by highlighting a section and clicking cite up top. Your content seems to be all there, but the sentence explaining that the bill was about hate crimes was several sentences in, and for clarity you might move that closer to the beginning of the article. Resa1234 (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

More feedback
I agree that this article should have a better lead section. There are a few citations that point to Wikipedia articles; these should be replaced with more reliable sources. It would also be interesting to include more about the process of creating and passing the bill. For example, despite its wide support, the bill |almost did not pass due to getting lost in the Ways and Means committee. Otherwise, very good start! -- Sandbergja (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating this Article
I thought the lead section of the article was somewhat clear and easy to understand. There is a lot of detail about what bias means. It would be easier to read if there weren’t so many quotes. I would paraphrase the first couple of sentences. It would be more clear and easier to understand if the explanation of bias was shortened and paraphrased. If those changes were made it would give a great overview of the article. The last two sentences really tie the lead section together! I thought the article’s structure was clear. I like that it has two headings and that the timeline comes after the explanation of the OSB 577. The image to the right is appropriate and gives a great visual of the article. Each section is a great length for what you are writing about.

I thought the content covered many aspects of the topic. I appreciated that you included an example of the importance of police and attorneys registering the crimes. The content gave more weight to important viewpoints. An example of this is that you gave an example of police and attorneys registering the crimes and explained the importance of this. Whereas the last paragraph, you didn't go on and on about the supporters of the bill. I really like you did that, it shows how one viewpoint is more important than another. You did not include any value statements like “the best'' or “the most important”. If you wanted to do that it would just show the most important points of the OSB 577. I didn't notice that this was written with a bias. I like that you cited some reliable sources such as Willamette week and included them as much as possible. YasmeenKoborsi (talk) 02:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Yasmeen Koborsi