User:Monapm19/Georgia State Board of Education/Hero49states Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Monapm19


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Georgia Board of Education


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

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.)

'''Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?'''

The content seems relevant to the article topic. The background, in particular, is useful to understanding the underlying dynamics of how the Georgia State Board of Education operates. There is no distracting detail.

'''Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?'''

The lead and background sections are written in the most neutral terms possible. Because the recent criticism section is on a topic that is an ongoing cultural discussions, that section will be viewed differently by individuals with different political ideologies. However, the author does not explicitly cast any value judgements on the topic of CRT or the resolution passed by the SBOE.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoints of both sides of the issue are represented in the recent criticism section. I do think that adding an additional sentence about the views of the proponents of the resolution will ensure a 2-2 sentence balance in the second paragraph of that section.

'''Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?'''

Every link of the citations work, and each source seems to support the claims in each sentence where the citation is used.

'''Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?'''

The lead and background sections have sufficient, appropriate, and reliable references. The author relies on legal codes and official government or NGO websites for the neutral information they include. However, the recent criticism section needs more references to back up all the statements made. For example, there is no cited reference for the statement about the ACLU's position on the SBOE's resolution, and there is no link to the actual text of the resolution to support what the author claims the resolutions states. For this section, the author relies on newspaper articles from reputable news outlets (i.e., The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, NPR) as references to how different groups reacted to the resolution, but these sources should not be used to describe what the actual resolution says (only the actual text).

'''Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?'''

None of the information is out of date, and the background and lead has sufficient information to understand the criticism section.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

Technically, the news articles can be considered secondary sources if the author is using the article for the newspaper's aggregation of viewpoints, but they are most likely primary sources if used primarily as a source of the viewpoints of different groups. The other governmental and NGO websites and texts are primary sources, so there is no reliable secondary sources that are the basis of the article.


 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?

The list of sources is appropriate to the information conveyed (i.e., background on SBOE and reactions to SBOE's resolution on CRT). However, an attempt should be made to include a section that can incorporate scholarly work on the topic.


 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

The article does link to other articles.