User:Gcmorgan/District of Columbia V. Exxon Mobil Corp/Southport203 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Gcmorgan

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gcmorgan/District_of_Columbia_V._Exxon_Mobil_Corp?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Could not find the link to the current article on the main Wikipedia page.

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.)

Overall, I think this draft does a good job explaining the District of Columbia V. Exxon Mobil Corp case as well as its environmental, economic, and political impacts. I find the article's organization to be well-thought out and clear for the reader. I also appreciated the article's section on similar cases because it demonstrates the ongoing relevancy of the topic. Some areas that I think could be improved include the use of sources and references. The article appears to be lacking a comprehensive reference section. While some sources are noted in the Medica Coverage section, they mainly consist of direct quotes and are not linked anywhere on the page. To improve this section, the author(s) should thoroughly footnote all sources and also work try to include a mix of direct quotations and paraphrasing. Additionally, I think the article could benefit from a close review of small gramatical and spelling errors to make it feel more polished. For example, the last sentence in the political impact section reads as "setting president" instead of setting precedent. However, despite these minor changes I think the article is strong in its overall coverage of the topic. The authors' ability to fully cover all components (political, environmental, economic, media) of the topic gives the article a very well-researched and comprehensive feel. For these reasons, I would say that the article does a successful job enhancing the reader's understanding of the topic.