User:Gracemck/Mayanna Berrin v. Delta Airlines Inc./Acn339 Peer Review

General info
Sizzlingbacon and Gracemck
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Gracemck/Mayanna Berrin v. Delta Airlines Inc.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Current version does not exist.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes, the first sentence very directly states what the rest of the Wiki page is going to be about and the topic of the article
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * somewhat, the lead more so gives an overall summary of the case but doesn't necessarily break down the main sections of the article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no, all of the information that is presented in the lead is also included in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is very concise and gives a good summary/ overview of what the rest of the Wiki page discusses and addresses.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes, all of the content that has been added is relevant to the topic. Since it is a new article, all the content that has been added is related to the airline case.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes, the content is up-to-date and is consistent with the court proceedings. The laws that are referenced are referenced correctly and are recent enough to still be in action, and the content about the lawsuit is about information that has happened in 2023.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * I do not think that it is completely necessary to include the "Public Reaction and Media Coverage" portion. I think it is interesting, and that some small phrases are important, but I think a section about the impact on consumers would allow more to say. Either that, or I would suggest adding the phrases about the exaggerated claims in a different section.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * no, the article does not mention any historically underrepresented populations or topics. It does also no deal with one of Wiki's equity gaps.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * the content is neutral, the information comes from both sides of the case with supporting evidence for the most part. Considering that this is a page about a case file, I think it was well written to expose no biases
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The "Public Reaction and Media Coverage" section could be slightly biased towards the side against Delta Airlines. This section refers to the big scandal and how the media is falsely and negatively portraying the case in the media, which is not supported with in-text references.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no, both viewpoints seem to be equally represented throughout the page. An appropriate amount of information seems to have been dedicated to each section.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * not necessarily, I think the article is stating the facts, but once you read the court's decision the reader will most likely agree with it, and the article, in believing that Delta Airlines is guilty. However, the "Public Reaction and Media Coverage" portion may persuade readers into leaning more in favor of the position against Delta Airlines because of the following statement: "The media has played a large role in creating buzz around this case and informing the public about the unreliability of carbon offsets and whether these offsets even tackle place at all. Since Delta has been under fire, the media has been making sure consumers around the world understand the problems associated with large corporations and their carbon emissions, sources like the Guardian, US News, and many more have covered this story and more articles are being published." This statement seems slightly opinionated and has no references cited to support the claim.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * a little is, nothing is cited in the 'background', 'court decision and consequences', 'public reaction and media coverage', and 'impact on the airline industry' sections. There are references throughout the article and in the reference section, but it is not cited throughout the entire article, which reduces the article's level of reliability
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes, since the case happened this year the sources have all been very current. Additionally, the older sources are related to laws or other large motions that have been made

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * the content is well-written because it is very straightforward while still giving a lot of information about the case. It is concise and does not seem repetitive and each section is well organized and separated with an appropriate amount of information. The article is fairly easy to read, considering that it is a lawsuit case, I think the editors did a good job at making it understandable for the reader.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * yes, the article has 6 references, which are reliable sources. Some of the sources are primary sources, but since it is a lawsuit case it seems more reliable and accurate to get information from both sides of the case rather than solely from secondary sources. For this reason, I think the article meet's Wiki's notability requirements
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * no, there are no links to other articles, but some suggestions of other articles to link to could include: Mayanna Berrin, Delta Airlines, greenwashing litigation, carbon offset emissions, etc.