User:Laurenoneil82/2019 Virginia political crisis/Morganromero3 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lauren Oneil (laurenoneil82)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Laurenoneil82/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead in the actual article discusses all three officials who were caught in a scandal over the course of one week in February 2019 while Lauren's added content specifically focuses on Northam's role in the entirety of it.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The Lead is an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic as it pertains to Northam. Once the two other official's situation's are included, the Lead will be effective and complete.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The first sentence is a great brief description of the article's major section on Northam, which is arguably the major centerpiece to this article as his scandal ignited the entire political crisis.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes, the added quotes are not currently present in the article. Context about how racism systematically persists in University culture - which is the site at which Northam was caught doing blackface - is also not present in the article as of yet.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise. If it were considered too detailed to another peer reviewer, I would maybe suggest eliminating one of the politician's quotes, however, I find this to be quite relevant and important because it speaks to the severity of Northam's scandal and helps explain the wide publicity it received as well.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. This scandal only occurred a little over a year ago, so the content is bound to be up to date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Content about the other two officials who were involved in the 2019 scandal would make the content entirely complete. However, I believe this is a great start given how thorough yet accurately concise the information included is.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes. The content is clearly neutral as it references direct quotes from relevant officials who were involved in the aftermath of Northam's scandal, including senators and representatives.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Given the severity of this situation, I believe the content does a neat and effective job in clearly outlining how explicitly problematic these events were and how it speaks to Northam's inability to be in office. There is not a single representative who is asserting this is wrong; it is a widespread belief backed up by multiple officials.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Presenting Northam's actions in a neutral, unbiased manner allows the reader to understand the consequences that are needed to his actions. Nothing is being downplayed nor is he receiving any special treatment given his occupational status. His own direct quotes are also included, which aligns with the facts presented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, only the facts and clear implications to those facts are presented. Even the article presented is not a matter of opinion; it is a list of the officials who have directly declared for Northam's resignation letter. There is no infiltrated bias in these presented facts.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Considering most of Lauren's content is direct quotes, it is accurately cited.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, each citation is an official statement made by public officials who handled the scandal. The fourth citation is pertinent as it relates to the racial implications to the scandal, specifically in how systematic racism can manifest in school yearbooks, photos, and nicknames.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the most dated source is last year, 2019 and the most current is 2020.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, each link works.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Absolutely. The content does a neat job in adding sophisticated language that is still accessible and informative. I was never unclear as to what was being said.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No spelling or grammatical errors are presented.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? If solely included in Northam's particular section of the article, the content is well organized and has good flow. However, I would maybe suggest discussing Northam's actions initially and then subsequently going into the aftermath. This means perhaps moving the second paragraph where Northam is explaining what he did up to the first so to inform the reader, and then delving into which politicians and officials wanted consequential action after finding out about this. Yet, the last paragraph is well placed. Commentary about the racial implications ought to be included, and it is important to add this after describing what Northam did because it helps inform the reader why these types of racist acts are grounds for dismissal.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? N/a
 * Are images well-captioned? N/a
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? N/a
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? N/a

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. The content has improved the overall quality of the article as it provides evidence to the severity of the issue at hand. Further, multiple forms of evidence are included in addition to commentary on how the racially charged nature of this event enhanced the issue.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Unbiased, direct quotes is the biggest strength. The language is also easily read yet simultaneously scholarly.
 * How can the content added be improved? The addition of images / media would be useful (i.e. if any of the listed quotes were verbally spoken on video, that would be an adequate visual to add to the article).