User:E.Michelle.70/Abortion in the United States by state/ClassyIam Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

E.Michelle.70


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:E.Michelle.70/Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state&oldid=1050762344


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_the_United_States_by_state&oldid=1050797393

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


 * The user has not yet begun working on editing the Lead section, as they are currently focused on the "Background" (Current legal status nationwide) and "By State" section.
 * The current article's lead is concise and does not contain any information that is not covered further in the article. It briefly reads that several states have different abortion laws that don't necessarily agree with the federal laws. That being said, this lead has the potential to be cleaned up and possibly expanded depending on what this user and others add to the Wikipedia article.

Content


 * The added content is relevant to the topic and in at least one case (Arkansas) updates a timeframe to make it up-to-date.
 * While I'm sure there's content missing, as this is listed as a C-class article, all of the information on the article appears to belong.
 * Since abortion and the laws surrounding abortion have been a hot topic in America (and many parts of the world) for at least the last 50+ years, and the article in question has received 11 edits by as many users this month alone, I'm not sure this article deals with an equity gap. However, abortion laws do affect women almost exclusively, and Wikipedia does consider women a population where equity gaps exist, so it could definitely be argued that this topic addresses an equity gap.

Tone and Balance


 * E.Michelle.70 has done an excellent job of making their additions to this article appear factual and neutral. I don't feel encouraged to come to one conclusion over another.

Sources and References


 * Using mediabiasfactcheck.com/, I plugged in all of the referenced URLs to determine if the sources are neutral or a variety of liberal and conservative sources have been cited.
 * guttmacher.org - Left-center Bias, High Factual Reporting "They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words... to favor liberal causes."
 * plannedparenthood.org - Liberal, Spends tens of millions of dollars annually supporting Democratic candidates.
 * mediabiasfactcheck.com didn't have Planned Parenthood listed, so I used another website: factcheck.org to come to the Liberal conclusion. mediabiasfactcheck.com categorizes factcheck.org as "Least Bias, Very High Factual Reporting"
 * arkansasonline.com - Right-center Bias, High Factual Reporting "based on editorial positions that favor the right."
 * Across the four references and three unique websites used, bias-checking them with the help of two different websites, I've come to the conclusion that while E.Michelle.70 is using a combination of left-leaning and right-leaning sources that can generally be trusted, their use of Planned Parenthood's website makes their overall bias left-leaning.
 * All of the sources are current.
 * While arkansasonline.com isn't a bad source to use, it is the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette and a better, non-journalistic secondary resource may be available. On the question of "diverse spectrum of authors," this was also the only source whose author I could find, and based on Rachel Herzog's Twitter profile, she appears to be a white woman.

Organization


 * While the added content is concise and easy to read, it does contain a few grammatical/spelling errors that can be easily fixed before publishing to the main article.