User:Harnieri/Opioid epidemic/Ahowel10 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Harnieri


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Harnieri/Opioid_epidemic?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Opioid epidemic

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.)

Content:

The content added to the article "Opioid Epidemic" is relevant because it adds a discussion of another aspect of the epidemic to the pre-existing wikipedia article. Specifically, the content discusses legal implications of the opioid epidemic, which is relevant and includes up-to-date information from current sources.

There does not appear to be any information missing. Harnieri clearly chose to discuss certain legal issues and not others, but there are is no particularly glaring paucity of information.

The addition the article does not touch on one of Wikipedia's equity gaps because the page is well-developed and touches on various aspects of the topic. However, Harnieri's topic "Treatment within Legal Landscape" does appear to touch on a topic not as thoroughly discussed. On the lead Wikipedia page, there is one sub-section on "public policy," but there is no further information on the legal landscape of the opioid epidemic.

Tone and Balance:

The tone of the article is well-written, concise, and neutral. The only sentence which might reflect bias is " . . . the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have faulted these efforts as they held that supervised injection cites violate the Federal Crack House Statute." The sentence could be made even more neutral by removing the term "faulted" and changing the sentence to " . . . the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that supervised injection cites violate the Federal Crack House Statute."

There are no sentences added that portray bias toward a specific opinion. The writing overall does not attempt to persuade the reader toward one opinion, with the exception of the sentenced previously discussed. (" . . . the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit have faulted these efforts as they held that supervised injection cites violate the Federal Crack House Statute.")

Sources and References

All information in the article was backed up by reliable sources.

Each sentence appropriately reflected the content contained in the sources cited.

After checking each link, they all worked. However, one citation was to a case. If possible, including a link to the document on the state's court website, google, or google scholar, as opposed to Westlaw or Lexis, would be helpful.

Organization

The article is well-written and concise.

There are no grammatical errors.

Images and Media

N/A

Overall Impressions

The content added to "Opioid Epidemic" is relevant, up-to-date, and has substantially improved the overall quality of the article. There was no subsection of the article addressing the legal issues brought up by Harnieri.