User:Taylor.daws/Impact litigation/Jerichorajninger Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Taylor.daws


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Taylor.daws/Impact_litigation?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * It seems relevant, although I am unsure for the cause of such specificity on Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It feels as though it gets a little tangential. I also wonder if the added paragraphs could be more clearly connected to impact litigation. I was a little unsure, at times, of the connection.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content seems up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I feel like the article could maybe also benefit from further fleshing out in other sections besides "Debate." And I think maybe some of the specific references to Ginsburg and the partisan slant that accompanies them could be edited.
 * Maybe also edit out the quotations you include, since I think we're supposed to try to avoid direct quotes, and those quotes could probably be paraphrased?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Perhaps? Impact litigation is often used to advocate for underrepresented communities.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? At some points, it feels as though the writing sounds more like an argument than an encyclopedia and could maybe use some revision?
 * For example:
 * "It is clear that in Ginsberg’s case she came in knowing the strategy that she was going to pursue. Manipulating clients to further personal political agendas is a highly unethical practice in civil rights and poverty law, and has been strongly voiced by critics on the right."
 * Organizing and engaging disadvantaged communities is also key to social change.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not really.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? All reputable Law Journals!!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current? Relatively current, although a few articles from the 90s could may be outdated given all of the legal advocacy on behalf of underrepresented populations that has happened over the past two decades.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I think the paragraphs could maybe be smaller? Both for ease of reading and also so that each graf talks about a specific idea.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I said this above, but it feels a little bit like the huge blocks of text are dropped under the "Debate" section but not necessarily super explicitly connected to the previous grafs or the section as a whole. Could maybe add a subhead or two?