User:Joelauria316/Onondaga County Justice Center/TheWittyOwls Peer Review

General info
Joelauria316, AntonioVLCruz
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The opening introduces the Onondaga Correction facility in a clear and concise matter. It shares the background and operating status.

Content: The dates of sources range from 2007 to 2023, which are newer/updated sources. Some key words/phrases used like "Syracuse University" and "New York State Department of Corrections" can be directly linked to other pre-existing articles. While the recent healthcare concerns section gives great insight to flaws in the facility, the content strays from being concise to being overly detailed.

Tone and Balance: The latter half of the article focuses on the death of three individuals and the switch in healthcare to prevent more. The emotional sway leads into persuasion against the correctional facility. To balance this, either add positive attributes to how the facility operates or thin out some lengthy details of the deaths.

Sources and References: The James T. Mulder and Chris Libonati along with several other local news sources do not provide a lot of variety with sources and have little to no data about how the facility actually operates. Sources with larger numbers and datasets with make observances more concise.

Organization: The content headers lead from one subject to the next pretty seamlessly. The death sections, again, could be shortened for more concision.

New Article: Meets notability requirements, the list of sources spans all subjects of the topics, but links to other articles are minimal.

Strengths: Mentioning the recent healthcare concerns adds more background to the facility and each header's paragraph ties well to the article's subject as a whole.