User:Kpetrosillo/United States Federal Witness Protection Program/Rge6eb Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kami - Kpetrosillo


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kpetrosillo/United States Federal Witness Protection Program


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * United States Federal Witness Protection Program

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? I think you did a really good job clearly explaining the premise of the Federal Witness Protection Program and distinguishing between the state and federal programs. The latter two paragraphs in the lead, however, could be their own sections within the article too. Because the lead is mainly for describing a quick overview of the program, it may be fitting to include these other two paragraphs later in the article (for example, the types of witnesses could go under the "Operations" section and the state program comparison could be its own new section in the article) and simply provide one or two sentences in the lead that mention the state program and types of witnesses to preview the section.

Content:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content added was relevant and up-to-date. I like how you added intermittent sentences to the article to help fill in gaps or clarify information that was not clear in the original article. I think you could add a sentence to the "History" section that describes the creation of the "Emergency Witness Assistance Program" that could help put the program into context with the regular program and because this is a fairly important program that was implemented.

Tone and Balance:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, mainly only facts are added, and you did a very good job with the research for the topic.

Source and Resources:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, it is concise and easy to read.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think that you could do some reordering and add a couple sentences that refer to other sections within your article, especially in the lead section. As you extend this article to become a little longer, it may also be useful to refer to links to other Wikipedia articles, such as "Recidivism".

Overall Impressions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? You have definitely improved the overall quality of the article. The only thing I would suggest is to do some reordering and perhaps expand more on some parts of the new sections you added. I think you did a great job both contributing to existing sections within the article and adding your own paragraphs in contribution to the article. Something that really helped me with my article was looking at other similar Wikipedia articles (for example, looking at other federal programs' Wikipedia articles) and looking at some sections that were a part of that article that was not included in mine. You could then get some new ideas for new potential sections to add to your article and focus your research around those sections if you feel they would add to your subject.