User:Taylor.daws/Public interest law/Jerichorajninger Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Madeline Dawson


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


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

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes! Talks about how public interest law firms operate, which is important to understanding their place in the legal system.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Content seems up-to-date. Seems up-to-date enough.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I like the close focus to the funding and operation of PI law firms. Could maybe expand beyond that to discuss other pressing issues in the field of study and line of work.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I think so, because PI law is about providing services to those who wouldn't otherwise be able to get them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, yeah! Statements like this, "There are a greater number of progressive organizations supported by government funding. Most conservative organizations are supported by private donors." don't feel super relevant to me and may come off as opinionated or biased, even if they aren't meant to be. But it doesn't seem like this is a topic where partisanship is needed.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Nope!

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Sources are reliable law journals.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources themselves seem good, but I wonder if you could cite even more in the article. It looks like you go through lots of additions with only a few citations.
 * Are the sources current? Relatively current. And I think the article from 2014 will still be widely applicable today.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? I feel like the additions could maybe be reorganized a bit to
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Seems good.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think breaking it up into categories, like "history" or "operation" or "funding" or things like that would help make it so the grafs don't feel like they run together in a rushed or jumbled way.