User:Carrington24/Capital punishment in the United States/Ryan9butler Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Carrington24


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Carrington24/Capital punishment in the United States
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Capital punishment in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes
Guiding questions:

Guiding questions:
 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * n/a
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * n/a
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * n/a
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * n/a
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * n/a


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. This group added much needed history of punishment in the U.S. to the wikipedia page that was not there originally, especially in their "Racial History" section, they provide an in-depth look on how Black people have been punished during in the U.S.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, they provide more of a historical analysis.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not believe so.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, they do a great deal of applying a historical analysis to the Wikipedia page. Originally, the page had a lack/if any of the history of capital punishment in regards to Black people.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, they do a good job of simply stating facts instead of adding their opinion into it.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, all of the content comes from a reliable secondary source that grabs information from several primary sources providing the group with plenty of statistics.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, although I do think they can find plenty of more available literature for such a broad topic. There is a lot of literature on Capital Punishment and I think they can dig deeper and find more.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, all the sources are from within the last 2 years.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, their sources come from a plethora of authors. I do not think they include historically marginalized individuals where possible.
 * 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.)
 * https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/amlr60&div=53&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-social-inquiry/article/abs/science-and-the-death-penalty-dna-innocence-and-the-debate-over-capital-punishment-in-the-united-states/A5A6C1FE1911211749174038A06EA4C9
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01258.x
 * https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/519823
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It is very easy and clear to read. It is very precise in getting the point across.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * I did not see any.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, but I think they need to add more.

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

 Overall Impressions  Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The content added has definitely improved the overall quality of the article but I think the group still needs to dig deeper and pull from more sources.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The strengths of the content added is the addition of the historical analysis of how Black people have been treated through capital punishment in the U.S.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be improved by pulling from more sources and just adding more content.