User:Writer444/2022 University of Idaho killings/373077CH Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

In reading the authors Wikipedia article on the 2022 University of Idaho Killings, I came across the following quote. As soon as I visited the website, I noticed right away that it was well put together and I could easily locate the information I was looking for. There is no sense that Julie has injected any opinions into the article, and even appearing as if the majority of the references have been taken from other sources, it does seem as though the article is fairly neutral in nature. In addition, Julie provided 78 references and links to where they found all their information, and since there are so many of them, it is in a way as if they have provided more information to the reader than they have originally stated. It is incredibly easy to access the footnotes of the article if you are able to dig deeper into the article and find them by going to the footnotes of the article. At the end of the article, there are numerous footnotes with links to additional articles that have been cited throughout the piece. These links can be found at the bottom of the article. Another thing that I noticed in her article is that reading through the information, I noticed that everything was very detailed and really went into an in-depth analysis of the topics that she touched base on in her article. As well as her addition of the location information, I really liked how she included a shot box summary that summarized how the killings took place, the type of weapon used, the times, the charges, and so on. Having a short description of what you will read at the beginning of the article was also a very nice addition, so you could get a quick overview of what you will read, but then once you get into the article, it goes more in-depth with what you read in the box. I really liked the fact that she added dates, as well as times, as part of the information she provided. It really impressed me because I know that times of death can be hard to find, so she dug deep to find them, and that was very impressive on my part. In conclusion, I would like to say that I really enjoyed reading the authors article and found it to be well-written, and found everything to be very easy to locate, as well as I enjoyed reading it.


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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.)