User:Jmlebla3/Cannabis in Louisiana/Kameronj4444 Peer Review

Peer Review
This article has a lead that has been updated to reflect the new content. The lead contains an introductory sentence but doesn't clearly explain what the article is supposed to be. It also doesn't include the descriptions of the major sections. It is short and doesn't explain the overall goal of the article. The content is relevant to the topic but it could be more information to provide a detailed explanation of what the main theme of the paper was. This article does address a recent topic that is underrepresented in a neutral manner. This article contains a completely neutral explanation. The information doesn't try to persuade anyone but is simply trying to inform the readers about the topic. The content is backed up by reliable sources however I believe the author could've pulled more information from his sources to add more information to the topic. The majority of the author's sources are fairly recent and are created by a diverse variety of authors. As I went through some of the links I can verify that they do work. The organization of the information could be better by making sure the subtitles are all in the same bold coloring. For example, "Medical cannabis (2015–present)" is in a different color and font than the rest of the subtitles. I didn't spot any grammatical errors however I did realize that the sentences during some of the sections seemed as though they could have more information that could follow up with them. The content is broken up into chronological order sections. My peer didn't have any added images. The strength of this article is how recent the information is however there could be more information added to the article. I believe that a lot more information could be present if the author asked themselves why certain things were the way they were such as why there are discriminatory bail amounts and what specific percentages of ethnicities are being prosecuted. The sandbox only had one source where you got your information and previous article or edits.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jmlebla3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Jmlebla3/Cannabis in Louisiana - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Cannabis in Louisiana - Wikipedia

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.)