User:Memphis2027/Deaf President Now/Popsgoestheweasel Peer Review

General info
Memphis2027
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Memphis2027/Deaf President Now
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Deaf President Now:

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: There has been a sentence in the beginning lead describing more about the information that they added to the article. It provides a good overview of topics to come but is not too specific or wordy.

Content: The information added, especially within The Protest section, are relevant to the original subject and provided more understanding to the the topic as a whole.

Tone and Balance: The content added is neutral, as in it presents objective facts with no opinionated language. I do not know if there were people "against" this protest, but if there were then maybe adding a section about the reasons for opposition could help the article present more than just the supportive viewpoint.

Sources and References: The sources utilized are applicable to the subject with authors that are knowledgable in their field. All 4 listed references are credible academic sources with information that directly applies to what was used within the article. However, in this section "One of the interpreters for DPN did an interview and stated, “I was trying to reflect the fact that it was the media that needed the interpreters as much as the deaf people did.” Letting people, such as interviewers, know they were also the ones who needed the interpreters tells them, “No, I’m here interpreting because you guys can’t communicate directly with each other.” There are direct quotes being used but there is no indication as to who that quote is coming from. Whenever there is a direct quote there must be an in text citation, not just a citation at the end of the paragraph.

Organization: Overall, the new information flows and fits into the original article well. There are a few sentences that could be grammatically altered to improve fluency between sentences/stanzas. For example, "Almost all of the photos taken of the protesters were positive. All images showed the protesters as large groups to show the unified determination to elect a deaf president." This could be changed to "Almost all photos of the protestors were positive, and showed them as a unified group with a collective cause: to elect a deaf president" Just to improve the way in which it flows for the reader.

Overall Impressions: I believe that all the content added has improved the article. It provides more clarity, understanding, and information for the topic of the Deaf President Now protest. The 'aftermath' section, specifically, adds a much more clear understanding of what the effects of this protest were. In the original article, that section was lacking.