User:BlueJay14127/Public Broadcasting Act of 1967/IconRomano Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

User:BlueJay14127


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Draft
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Current:

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.)

Lead: Not included in this draft.

Content: The draft article adds more contextual information to the original wiki article, which is helpful. All the information added to the draft is relevant. In the provisions section, it would be helpful if you could specify which parts of the bill do the actions you are describing, right now it's a bit difficult for me ad a reader to follow. The hearings section, makes it seem like there was only one hearing on the bill. Is this true? Maybe include a disclaimer that there were more. When you reference what some people/groups ("Some voiced concern" and "Several other witnesses ") said during the hearing, it would be helpful if you could say WHO those groups are. The table is very helpful to provide a overview for the reader. I wonder if you could make your hearings paragraph apart of a broader concerns and criticism section in legislative history, currently it's confusing why you focused on that specific hearing from an outside perspective.

Tone: Currently the article seems written in a neutral perspective. In the provisions section, it says "the major part of the Act," this is nuanced, but I would maybe try to add justification for why that is the major part (is it the most content heavy or?). I will reiterate that the section titled Hearings does focus on one specific hearing, without really justifying why its special to be covered and no other hearing (I realize we did this for a class assignment, but other users might not understand why that hearing is the most important). Overall, the article does exceptionally well at presenting statements as facts not opinions.

sources: Your sources 1 and 2 are very similar, are they supposed to be two separate citations? Besides that good sources, you will just need more. I would also suggest maybe considering to add citations more throughout the paragraphs instead of just at the end.

Organization: I think this is the section where the article could use more focus. I do appreciate the addition of the table as a visual aid to break up the sea of words. The provision section while it has good content, needs to be tweaked to make it more navigable for the reader. Right now as a reader I have no idea which sections of the Act do the achievements described in the provisions section. If you were able to break up the provision paragraph by each section of the bill, instead of just merging it all as one chunk, I think it would be easier for the user to follow. Likewise, you could maybe employ the use of bullet points if one section is really dense. Right now there is some sentences that don't stand alone, and can be confusing, for example "Created programs that are controversial should be objective and present a balance of opinions." You could say Also the Act _____ to provide a better transition. The best solution I think would be to reorganize the presentation of this section, maybe look at other wiki pages to see how they did it. I also noticed you included Provisions before the legislative history section, I think it would make more sense to have the legislative history section come before the provision section, then the flow is the making of the bill to then the contents of the bill.

Overall, your additions help provide more information about the article and it is very helpful. The draft includes some good sources and content. If the article is reread and tweaked to be presented in a better flow, the reader will have a much easier time understanding the information that is being provided.