User:Tjuadiv2023/Criminal sentencing in the United States/Strawberries30 Peer Review

General info
Tjuadiv2023
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Tjuadiv2023/Criminal sentencing in the United States
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Criminal sentencing in the United States:

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.)

Lead: It appears the editor did not make any changes to the lead. However, despite not making any changes, the lead contains an introductory sentence that clearly describes the article's topic: criminal sentencing and gives definition and background information on how sentences or who determines the sentence. The lead does not contain extraneous information that is present in the article nor is it overly concise or detailed preventing the reader from understanding the main idea. However, advice would be to update the lead to include the new addition of the sections the editor has chosen to add.

Content: Looking at the editor's addition, the editor chose to add a new section: "Criminal Sentencing and Incarceration of Blacks in the US." Reading through the original article did not contain information on black incarceration, however, it does include criminal sentencing of women. Adding this new section to the article is relevant because it provides a new perspective besides just women. Reading through the content, the information of both what was added and what was originally there is up-to-date and does not appear to have any content that does not belong. However, there article is missing several citations that would greatly add to the article's credibility and ease of other readers to find more information. The original article does deal with Wikipedia's equity gap of women, but the editor's inclusion of black men further adds to the equity gap experienced by other minorities and other underrepresented groups.

Tone/Balance: After several readings of the article, the content added is neutral without providing any information about what side the editor is taking. The added content provides no claim that is heavily biased but rather presents the facts of what is going on. The editors do not present any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented that could attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position over another. In general, the added content is a great addition providing unbiased information of what is going on.

Sources and References: The new content is backed up with both secondary and primary sources with the earliest article dating back to 2001, however, it was updated in 2019. Most of the sources included to provide information to this new section are recent and appear to be written by a diverse spectrum of authors. Reading through some of the sources, the editor did a good job of adding the sources within the content without citing them word for word or paraphrasing. Furthermore, this demonstrates that the links work and the sources are thorough.

Organization: The article is organized and well written by starting off with a lead by including the definition and background information. The sections are easy to follow by being organized into different types of sentencing and the inclusion of different state laws. It then sections off into women and the new addition of black incarceration. However, because the editor has chosen to add a new section, including that in the lead gives the readers an idea of what is going on. Reading through the content, the content is well written with little to no grammatical or spelling errors.

Images and Media: The original article includes three images: two charts, one on the rate of incarceration throughout the years and the other on the rate based on race, and one image of the women's correctional facility. The addition of the rate of incarceration based on rate is a great image to back up the editor's new content as it demonstrates that blacks are incarcerated at a higher rate. However, the editor herself did not include any images in her new section. Thus, there were no captions to be added or a need to adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations on the images.