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

General info
Apeoples7
 * 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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

- I'm not sure Wikipedia encourages you to write in bold font; given this, I would start by making the quick fix of turning your bold font text to normal.

- Also, Wikipedia Subsections do not capitalize after the first word, therefore your subheading "Outside Context and Relationships" should be "Outside context and relationships."

- Oxford style advises you change the format of your date: March 1st 1969 -> March 1, 1969.

Grammatical Changes: "The Legal Services Program (LSP) when appalling cases looked for cases that were both "sympathetic", and that would easily "outrage" to argue in the Supreme court. The situation of Vivian M. Thompson presented such a case in the eyes of the LSP" -> "appalling" to "appealing"

Lead

The lead provides the reader with a basic understanding of the case, as well as the implications of the court's decision.

Content

The content you add to the article is quite weighty. It provides very detailed accounts of the case, in specific the people who were in support of Thompson, and those in support of Shapiro. Alongside this, including the timeline is very helpful, but I did find there to be simply too many dates that just didn't seem essential to understanding the implications of the case. Also, the timeline seemed to be pulled directly from your source by Jordan Lambo, which is not an issue, but it does bring to light that there should be a difference between the wikipedia article and the published legal article. Moreso, in looking at other legal cases' Wikipedia page, none of them describe the ebbs and flows of the case, even the Roe v. Wade page doesn't dive so much into the legal aspects of the case, but rather the implications. With that being siad, I think it would be helpful to dumbdown the timeline, and focus moreso on the legacy and legal significance. The content you include in that section is very helpful to understand the importance of the case, and the stronger that section is, the more validity it gives the the "Supreme Court Hearing" section.

Tone and Balance

The content is neutral and does not delve so much into her opinion on the case. I would not be able to draw an accurate conclusion as to your stance on the case. I also really admire that your case is working fill an equity gap by analyzing welfare rights, and evolving the literature on underprivileged people in America.

Sources

Your sources range in their publication date, which is great. There are strong secondary sources, which feed off of the context provided in the primary sources. Given how often you cite Jordan Lambo's article, it would be very helpful to have a working link to refer to, but I understand if that's not an option.

Organization

I think it would be helpful to rethink your timeline a bit, and if you decide to keep all of your content from that, restructuring it could be helpful to make the timeline more digestable. Also, I really like your use of the table for the "Supreme Court Hearing" section, and that could be a means to cleaning up the timeline.

Overall impressions

In its entirety, the additions you are making to the article are outstanding. Very few legal cases on Wikipedia cover their article as aextensively as you do. That is to say, I do think it would be beneficial to cut bits and pieces of your work, as hard as that may be. It is important that the article distinguishes itself from a legal writeup of the case, and rather conveys itself as a comprehensive analysis of the case's ramifications in other case decisions. The better you can connect the case to government policy on welfare as well as travel, the better.