User:Rj-2198/United States abortion-rights movement/Sreddyuab Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Usernames: Haydenh22, Rj-2198

Miya Richardson and Hayden Hayes


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Rj-2198/New Sandbox


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * United States abortion-rights movement

Evaluate the drafted changes
This article draft was extremely well-done. There was a clear structure to the draft that was easy to follow. I liked that the sections were organized in a way that made intuitive sense and flowed well. The draft begins by summarizing Roe v. Wade, then summarizing the current state of the abortion rights movement across the U.S. by describing the current state abortion laws, which also ties into the history of the abortion rights movement, as well as key organizations that have played important roles in this movement. The draft also had relatively balanced coverage. No significant viewpoints were left out, and the authors did not try to convince the reader of any specific viewpoint or force them to make the same conclusions as the authors of the draft. Similarly, the content was written in an objective manner that reflected a neutral tone. There were no extreme sentences, and the authors did not try to associate certain viewpoints with positive or negative connotations. The Roe v. Wade section was particularly well-written. As a summary, it managed to convey the facts of the court case succinctly, but simultaneously refrained from making any value judgements. Thus, it allowed readers to come to their own conclusions about the case. This can be difficult to do, especially regarding a court case as well-known and opinion-inducing as Roe v. Wade. However, I do urge the authors of this draft to consider whether it is truly necessary to add an entire Roe v. Wade section to this article, as the most important conclusions of the court case are already incorporated into the original Wikipedia article under the “History” section.

The summary of the abortion laws across the country was also succinct and well-written. It was a great way to quickly obtain an idea of the current status of the abortion-rights movement across the U.S., as well as which areas are more or less lenient regarding abortion. I thought this section was the most important contribution that the authors added. I also really enjoyed the addition of religious organizations. Usually, religion and the abortion rights movement are seen as opponents. However, this stereotype ignores the work that many religious organizations put into supporting the abortion rights movement, so I thought that the inclusion of this section was smart and significant. I also really liked the inclusion of a COVID-19 update for the work that the National Abortion Federation is doing. It was a topical and relevant inclusion that demonstrates how COVID-19 has impacted the abortion-rights movement and what steps have been taken to address those impacts. On that note, however, I would like to see a COVID-19 update added to the other organizations that are discussed in the article as well, so that the readers can see how other organizations beyond simply the National Abortion Federation (e.g. Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the religious organizations) have handled the fight for abortion rights in the context of the pandemic.

Overall, the draft has many strong points, particularly regarding the content, tone, and structure of the contributions made by the authors. Beyond the content changes I suggested earlier, I think the biggest improvement to this article could be made in grammatical edits. The wording on some of the paragraphs was slightly wordy and confusing at times. Though the content changes that were added to the draft were all pertinent and important contributions, the way they were discussed could be improved, as I noted on the Google document when I saw room for improvement. Many times, the same grammatical error popped up multiple times. This included subject-verb agreement, commas, and hyphens that were not present where they should have been. Fortunately, many of these changes were minor edits that can be easily fixed moving forward. The most difficult part of the review – ensuring that the draft had neutral, balanced content that was organized well – was done extremely well.