User:Genderedjustice/Bernette Joshua Johnson/ValidWikiLuvr Peer Review

General info
Genderedjustice
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:Bernette Joshua Johnson
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Bernette Joshua Johnson

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.)

Peer Review
Lead:

The article's introduction is very brief, leaving most of the other details about her life to come later. While this is good, it could be slightly expanded. Also, as she has a biographical column which mentions Kimball, that detail may not be necessary or relevant to her biography's entirety. Instead, it may be more relevant to include that Johnson was also the first woman on the Orleans Parish Civil District Court. Lastly, there is no need for a comma in the first sentence.

Content:

The content is very comprehensive and includes some really strong examples of her most historic and positional cases. There are a few mistakes with punctuation, namely commas; one appears in the second sentence of the "Early life and education" section. Also, there is some slight redundancy in sentence structure in this section, as every sentence following the first begins with "she". Lastly, though it is not necessary, it may be more logical to reorder the last three sentences.

In the "Career" section, the first sentence should definitely be moved to preceded the cases which prove and expand upon this detail. This could all be combined to form a new subsection which focuses on her ideologies and goals on the bench. Otherwise, all information seems relevant, simply it must be better structured. The last two sentences should certainly be moved to the Lead section, as they are most relevant to her overall narrative.

Tone/Balance:

Overall, the article is neutral and includes information that is relevant to her narrative, yet some details are included that may be unnecessary with regard to her court decisions. Otherwise, close to none of the sentences contain bias which would hinder the validity of any statements.

References:

The references are still functional! A couple sentences may need a citation added though, but I also see that you contributed already to some of this. Definitely lots of validity!

In Sum:

This is a great article, and, honestly, I think it is perfect opportunity to modify and expand. The content mainly needs some fine-tuning, but no major issues are significant within what is written. Going forward, I think the main thing for you to do with these things is organize it in preparation for your additions!