User:Amandashowler/Watts family murders/ClebGlad Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Amandashowler


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * link


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

Lead
Amandashowler appears to have removed the lead section from the wikipedia article in her sandbox draft.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * All of the content added in Amandashowler's article is relevant to the topic. They fleshed out the background, disappearance, and legal proceedings sections.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * All of the content added appears to be up to date, with second-hand sources like an insider article from 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content of the article appears to cover all the notable components of the events it attempts to describe. There are no notable content gaps.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * The article deals with violence against women and girls, which are historically marginalized groups.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is a neutral, unemotional description of relevant events, which is especially notable considering how the subject matter is quite upsetting.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article doesn't appear to make any claims beyond those which can be evidenced by reliable second-hand sources.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * The article is an account of a highly scrutinized news event which has been legally resolved, and therefore it does not present differing views.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The content added makes no attempt to persuade the reader to hold any belief, as the events of the Watts family murders are a legal closed case.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * All the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content from the sources I checked does not misrepresent what the sources say, and also rephrases what the source says in the author's own words.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are from diverse news websites and thus reflect the available info on the topic.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources range from 2018 (when the events happened) to as recent as 2020
 * 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.)
 * After checking scholar.google.com, I could find no such journal publications about the watts family murders. Therefore, the sources included in the article are probably the most relevant.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * The links that I checked do work.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I found the content added to be easy to read, concise, and tonally consistent with the existing parts of the article.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * One minor criticism is that, In the second paragraph of the "background" section, the author switches from past-tense to present tense while talking about past events. Internet sources oddly differ in the spelling of one of the victim's names: some say "Shanann", but most appear to say "Shannan". The author usually uses "Shanann" but also includes "Shannan" and "Shanan" once each.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The content is well organized, the sections each highlight major components of the news and legal case.

Overall impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The article does feel more complete now the Amandashowler has added significantly to the Background, Disappearance, and Legal proceedings section of the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths are that it is thoroughly sourced, neutrally written, and all relevant to the article's topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be improved with some minor fixes in grammar and spelling that were mentioned before. I think adding pictures to this article might be inappropriate, so it's fine that the article doesn't include that.