User:Nathanfielder/Trial of George Zimmerman/Hudson1521 Peer Review

General info
(Nathanfielder)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Trial of George Zimmerman

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.)

There haven't been any updates yet in the sandbox that I can see, although I know some were made in the actual article. The lead in the article is concise, I am not sure if there is anything you would want to add to it. A lot of the article does not have citations and I'm sure citations will need to be added. I would also double-check the information just to make sure it is accurate. I think that there is probably a lot more that could be added under the public reaction section, given how large this case was. The article does have some media, but it might be beneficial to add more photos, especially one of Zimmerman. I was just skimming the article so I'm not sure whether or not it's in there yet, but you could mention something about the notability of the trial and why it had such a large impact.

Also, while it's not about the trial itself, after the closing of the trial, the FBI opened their own investigation. If you wanted you could include this as a follow up (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-death-trayvon-martin). There are a lot of news sources cited (CNN, Fox, CBS), so it might be beneficial to go through and look at what was cited under those just to check its credibility. It seems like the article stays neutral. I know you mentioned there were spots you wanted to reorganize to make it clearer, so that might be beneficial. Overall it sounds like you have a good start to knowing what you want to do with the article.

Pt. 2 Peer review

There was conversation about reformatting in the paragraphs. It might help with readability if you added more sections or sub-sections to distinguish different information within the headings. For now I think it would be beneficial to continue adding sources (especially in public responses) and taking out irrelevant information.