User:Allie partridge/User:Allie partridge/Capital punishment in Massachusetts/Elizabethpopoff Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Aliie partridge
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Allie partridge/Capital punishment in Massachusetts

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 new content added.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes this lead is very clear to what is included within the article. I really like the organization of the article, as the lead is above the contents and allows the reader to see what they are going to encounter within the topic.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes as stated before, it shows the content preview of what is going to be covered under the lead itself.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * The lead does not include information that is not present and sufficiently fulfilled within the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Yes the lead is concise, getting right to the point of what is included within the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes the content added is relevant to the topic, Capital Punishment in Massachusetts.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * The content is not up-to-date. This may be because of the long history of Massachusetts capital punishment within the state itself. It may be hard to retrieve newer sources because of this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I believe that there could be addition of content including famous cases that occurred within this state, the ways they usually perform such acts, and historical people that passed the laws to make capital punishment still legal within Massachusetts. This could also include hyperlinks to existing pages on Wikipedia that are relevant to this current page you are editing.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This article does deal with historically underrepresented populations because many across the United States do not agree with capital punishment.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes the content that is added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there are not claims that appear heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * I do not believe there are view points that are either overrepresented or underrepresented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in any way.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes the content is backed up by reliable sources of information in due to the information's location, specifically the ones deriving from Massachusetts' law websites.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes the sources are thorough and cover many topics that the Wikipedia site does not cover. This could be a way to improve the article further, as many of the sources contain information that is missing in the article.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are somewhat current. This could be because, as stated before, the articles date back historically correlating to this particular topics origins within Massachusetts.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes I believe the sources are written by a diverse spectrum of authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work perfectly.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The content added is well-written and gets straight to the point following the topic of the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any grammatical errors within the piece.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! I throughly enjoy how the content is organized. It is easy for the reader to view the page in due to the organization structure of the lead, the content, and the sections of this article.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


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

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * 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?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes the content added improves the quality of the article, giving it a more complete and whole-sum feeling for the readers viewing the page.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is giving the article a more complete feel with the addition of important information that allows the reader greater understanding to the topic itself.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * The content that was added can be improved by more expansion. The beginning of the information that was contributed to the page was very strong however I wish there was more elaboration on the topics possible addition mentioned above.