User:Apeoples7/Shapiro v. Thompson/EMILLS31 Peer Review

General info
Anne Peoples (Apeoples7) - Shapiro v. Thompson
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Apeoples7/Shapiro v. Thompson
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Shapiro v. Thompson 2/26/24

Evaluate the drafted changes
hi anne! just wanted to say that i hadnt heard of this case before so im glad i got to review your entry on it :) i want to preface this by saying that alot of the issues i review here are just wording preferences. obviously, these are pretty subjective so only take them as seriously as you see fit. mostly the criticism is about the wordiness interrupting the digestibility of the article, which i think is a super easy fix! cheers and ty for educating me abt this case! i dont think the legal terms you use are too jargon-y at all and should be able to be understood by most

Lead:

The additions to the lead are good in establishing why the case is important and the affects that it had, but a little hard to read in my opinion. I think the content included is perfect, but just could be briefer easier to read for a general audience. For example, the first sentence loses it's structure and gets a little confusing although the content of the sentence is really important. "Shapiro v. Thompson poses the question that if Congress in writing Section 602(b) 42 of the Social Security Act overstepped its regulating powers in giving states the ability to restrict travel." is good, but maybe if it was punctuated differently it would be easier to understand. Maybe something like "Shapiro v. Thompson questioned if Congress, in writing Section 602(b) 42 of the Social Security Act, mis-stepped its regulating powers in giving states the ability to restrict travel." or rewording it a little. Then in the next sentence, I think it could just say "Shapiro v Thompson is one of a number of supreme court cases," instead of "is a part of a set of number of successful Supreme Court cases."

Content:

Starting with the facts of the case, I think the details you added were really great and clarified alot for me personally. As I'd stated previously, I am not familiar with this case in the slightest. I read the current article first and was definitely pretty confused as to what was going on in it. With your added stuff in Facts of The Case, the sentence "Shapiro v. Thompson was not about the issue of welfare itself, but rather about the restrictions to the right to travel and possible violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment." is a really good summary and really makes it clear whats going on, so nice job there. Maybe there's somnewhere you could elaborate on how it still has impacts for welfare and why it is included in "The Welfare Cases" you mentioned in the lead. I think this is what you were referencing in your note to the peer editor, so you probably already know that I just wanted to be clear :)

A little run on here that can be easily fixed: "The Constitution holds that people may move from one place to another within the United States, and the Supreme Court has affirmed that this right may not be interfered with by states, as established in United States v. Guest. Connecticut, in their own words, wanted to dissuade people who may need welfare from taking up residence in Connecticut, thus impeding their right to interstate travel. "

The rest of the structure is nice, I would just be more mindful of citations on your timeline. Like, where are you getting the timeline from? Just one source or different? Just one is okay obviously if it's based on legal documents, I'd just put that somewhere like "The timeline below is based on [document or org etc etc name]" to let readers know where this big chunk of info is coming from.

When it comes to the equity gap, I'm not sure it hits directly, but it is systemically important to marginalized folks so I think it fits well enough to be significant.

Tone and Balance

" While a state's regulation of any program might not be well-thought-out or even possibly deemed as foolish, it is not the District Court's job to decide." just sounds a little unprofessional or biased, maybe something like "Despite disagreements with regulations, it's out of the District Court's jurisdiction" idk okay maybe not that short but just an example of how to avoid the subjective words. This is the only thing I found that fell a little out of the correct tone. Additions focus well on the points of both sides and how they got to their stance.

Sources

Sources used are diverse and I checked a few randomly-- looks good.

Organization

The only issue I have is that the table you've inserted is a little unwieldy on the page and kind of messes the flow. It's a good addition to the piece but if there's a way you could make it smaller or just format it a little differently to fit with the other info that would just be better viewing wise.

Overall:

I think you did a really great job expanding the article. With your additions it feels like I have a much better grasp on the subject and its historical significance. The only thing I'm a little thrown off about (and sorry lol I didn't know where else to put this) is that I feel like the paragraph about the judges right after the table you made could be reworked in some way? Maybe it even calls for a section that divulges possible conflicts of interest or something like that with the judges involved, I'm not sure. I think the content is important because it points out where biases could lie and influences on the proceeding, but it feels like it interrupts the flow a little as it calls away from concrete facts of the proceedings.

You have plenty of sources, so I don't see that being an issue for you at all. I am wondering, though, how this pertains to course material? More than likely there is a reading I missed or something, but adding a little historical context to the article would really draw it into class content. The last thing I would recommend adding is maybe something about the ""legacy" of this case. For example, what other cases did it set the precedent for, were politicians using this as a talking point, anything like that.