User:Pns4545/Competence to Waive Appeals/KillerKlownzilla Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Pns4545


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Pns4545/Competence to Waive Appeals


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article I am reviewing is a draft of a new page for Competence to Waive Appeals. Overall, this looks like a great start of a new page. The draft contains a broad overview of the competence and its definition and applications.

Lead
The initial sentences of the lead section describe the overall content of the article. The lead concisely summarizes each of the sections in the article, including an overview of the legal standard for competence, the psychological standard for competence, juvenile competence, and notable cases. There is no information in the lead that is not included in the article.

It may be beneficial to add citations within this section to back up the claims that are made, even though they are discussed in more detail in the remainder of the article. For example, it is stated here that juvenile appeals are less likely to be considered, but there is no citation for this.

Content
All of the content added is appropriate for this new page. The content is relevant to the topic, and there is no irrelevant information included. The content is also up-to-date. I think it would be possible to expand more on the legal and psychological standards for competence. For example, a more thorough history could be provided on how the standards have changed over time (or a separate section could even be added to summarize these changes). Additional information could also be added on how exactly the standard for juvenile competence differs from that of adult competence. However, the content in the article as it stands now provides a good summary of the important details.

Tone and Balance
The article is written from a neutral perspective and avoids biased claims. There does not appear to be any viewpoints that are over- or under-represented in the draft. The content does not attempt to persuade the reader to take on a particular position or perspective.

Sources and References
In my opinion, the most room for improvement would be to add additional citations throughout the article. The section for the psychological standard of competence includes several statements that should be supported by other sources. "Mental health experts are almost always called to testify in cases where the defendant's competency is at issue" could be backed up by another source, as could the following sentence about the vast discretion that psychologists have. In the section on juvenile competence, "Issues of competency on appeal are most commonly raised on sentences involving the death penalty" could also be supported by an outside source.

Organization
The content is well-written and is free of grammatical errors. The content is organized logically. I also liked the decision to include separate sections on legal and psychological standards, as the fields emphasize different issues.

Images and Media
There are no images or media content in the article.

For New Articles
The article includes many legal citations, but as discussed above it may be possible to include additional sources (i.e., textbooks or journal articles) in future drafts or when expanding further on the content. The article follows the patterns of similar articles and links to another Wikipedia article. It might be possible to add links to other Wikipedia articles (to the broader competence page or to other legal cases that are discussed in the article).