User:Jsdorsey/Gun Control Act of 1968/Dmar24 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jsdorsey


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jsdorsey/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Gun Control Act of 1968
 * Gun Control Act of 1968

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.)

LEAD


 * The lead has not been updated
 * The lead does include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic
 * The article includes a description of the article's major sections including the describing the Federal Firearms Act and the provisions of the law
 * The article includes information that are present in the article
 * The lead is concise, however more information could be given to what it is rather than containing the basic definition of it

CONTENT


 * The content added is relevant to the topic
 * The content added it up to date
 * Jsdorsey included important information for the law changing, I believe this should be added to the wikipedia page. There is no content that does not belong
 * Yes, the article addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations and topics

TONE AND BALANCE


 * There is not much content added, however what is added is neutral. The person's article I am reviewing does not make it seem one sided
 * No, there are no claims that are heavily biased towards a particular position
 * I think the topics labeled "Gunsmith and factory repair exception", "import restrictions", "marking requirements" are all underrepresented
 * No, the content added does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another. It is all facts and information being discussed, followed by a citation to find the information.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES


 * Yes, new content is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information
 * The content does accurately reflect what the cited sources say
 * The sources are thorough-they reflect available literature on the topic
 * The sources are current, they are range from the years 2007-2019
 * The sources are written from a diverse spectrum of authors
 * The sources used are New York Times and other scholarly articles, so I think the sources used are good

ORGANIZATION


 * The content added is well-written, it is concise, clear, and easy to read
 * There are no grammatical errors or spelling errors to the content added
 * Jsdorsey did not copy and paste the original format onto their sandbox, so the set is not organized. There is a section labeled "Article Body" in the sandbox and I am not sure where this section will be put or added.

IMAGES AND MEDIA


 * The article does include images when you hold your cursor over the blue highlighted words. However Jsdorsey does not have any images on their page so the following answers below will not correspond with their sandbox article, but with their original wikipedia page with the law they chose
 * The images have good descriptions
 * The images do adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations
 * The images that are given are presented in an appealing way

******

FOR NEW ARTICLES ONLY


 * Yes, the article does meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements
 * There are 4 sources given. It represents all available literature on the subject
 * No, it does not provide all sections that are similar to other articles. Jsdorsey was suppposed to copy and paste the article into their sandbox and edit/add from there but they did not
 * No, they are not cited so it is extra work to find which sources correlates to a certain piece of information

OVERALL IMPRESSIONS


 * There was not much content that was added to the article. I wouldn't consider the article "more complete"
 * A strength of the content that was added was it provided the laws that changed
 * The content can be improved by providing more information on the provisions