User:Gilewis1217/Cannabis in Louisiana/Kyledude1337 Peer Review

Lead:

-Lead has been updated very will to did great for

-the lead Does includes a nice introductory sentence about cannabis in Louisiana. could have a stronger hook.

-The lead DOES include a good description of the article major sections and is categorized well.

-Nope all lead details are present in the current article

-No, I would say the lead is as detailed as it needs to be.

Content:

-All content is relevant to the content being told. is also organized Very well.

-All content is up to date, so much so the last note is from this year

-no, all content is in the place it needs to be in. nothing misplaced

-It does not represent address any topics related to historically underrepresented people

Tone and balance:

all of the content is displayed in a neutral way

there are no colossal claims. all things are factual.

I think the only viewpoint that may be a bit under representative is the prisoners that have been jailed due to cannabis

no there is no attempt at the writer of this article trying to persuade the reader.

Sources and references:

-all sources are accurate and reliable to the facts at hand.

-The content is true to the sources of what they are trying to come across.

-all sources are current and from reciet years

-there is a diverse spectrum of authors being used

-possibly better sources, but nothing that's so obvious, the content is fine personally.

-all links work as intended

Images and media:

-Images are limited and I feel like more can be used.

New articles:

-it does meat all notability rules

-the sources are very extensive

-is very familiar to other articles on Wikipedia

-and yes the other article links are very useful

Overall impression:

Very nice article thats informative and to the point I believe It does very well at giving the information in a unbiased manor. I do wish however you talk a bit more about the incarceration rates due to cannabis a bit more.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


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

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.)