User talk:Rseplow/sandbox

Peer Review: Shelby v. Holder
I looked over your Shelby v. Holder section and overall, I think the additions you have made so far are really good. The naming of actual states makes the information much more useful for readers because it provides more detail. I’m not sure if this section would be the place to put it, but I am curious about what the stricter photo ID policies were that you mention in the second paragraph. You could possibly add more details about that here, which could then provide how these states justified the need for stricter photo ID policies. This would help with neutrality by stating both points of view.

In terms of sources, right now, one of your sources is a Facebook link to an unverified page, which I think is a less credible source. Another thing you could consider is finding another poll from a different source to confirm the findings of the Brennan Center. Otherwise, I think you overall have a good variety of source, though if you were looking to expand your sources on the case, I think there are a couple books and a good number of academic articles written about the topic available on the UChicago library website.

I'm not sure where your "Georgia article" was supposed to go. Is this meant to be added to your Shelby v. Holder section? My only comment for that just in case it is meant to go in this section is to make sure that each of those bullet points has a citation.

A minor detail is that in your first paragraph, there is a quotation mark that begins, but does not have a closing quotation mark. And you mention that “three states” were covered by Section 5, but you list four states in the second paragraph. Schoe043 (talk) 09:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Another Peer Review: Limitations on Early and Absentee Voting + Shelby v. Holder
Limitations on Early and Absentee Voting You do a good job renaming the sub-category and incorporating more information. However, there are a couple of minor grammar/stylistic aspects in your newly edited version that sounds a bit funny at times. For instance, adding “the” before the second sentence of “costs associated with voting include. . .” would make the sentence flow a bit better. In the third sentence of “These factors inherently affect minorities. . .,” I think you should add why these factors particularly impact minorities — maybe add a “because ___, ___, and ____” would help. In sentence four, you should take out the second “there.” Other than minor grammar edits, I think your structure and coverage of the material is clear and easy to follow. Also, great job quantifying certain facts! Shelby v. Holder You should have a leading phrase into the quote that begins with “Section 4” to make it flow a bit easier. Follow-up question — where does the quote end? Also maybe link the Wikipedia page of a majority page. Also, I really liked that you named the states — nice job! The second sentence of the second paragraph beginning with “Within 24 hours of the verdict” is a bit convoluted. Again, great job with structure, coverage, and especially finding a majority of reliable sources! Zahussen (talk) 11:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Yet Another Peer Review: Limitations on Early and Absentee Voting and Shelby v. Holder
Limitations on early voting: I agree with your decision to remove the line about the GOP “celebrating”; it doesn’t really fit with the tone of the article, nor does it seem very relevant to the piece. There are minor stylistic/grammar things in this section that I would change, just small phrasing things. I feel that you should cite more facts (as in list more, not add more citations): In the first paragraph, you state that “These factors inherently affect minorities and the poor more”—why? How does this impact them more? You should list these. Similarly, in the last paragraph you state that “Cut backs in early voting disproportionately affect African American voters who vote early in higher proportions than white voters.” How/why? It’d be good to cite facts with this. You then say that Republican lawmakers “then passed laws that restricted voting and registration in five different ways, all of which disproportionately affected African Americans”; can you list these 5 ways? Would help to make it clearer. Overall, though, great edits to clarify a woefully underdeveloped section that is especially relevant right now!

Shelby v. Holder: I think that you should add a leading phrase to better contextualize the quote. And where does that quote end? I liked the addition of the list of states to this section—you should do more of that in your other article, too! There are some phrasing things that could be changed a bit for awkwardness, but overall, as with your other piece, good expansion on an underdeveloped piece!

General: Your sources seem good and reliable; however, some (WaPo articles) link back to Facebook rather than the Washington Post site. If you look, you can see that it’s WaPo, but from a quick glance it looks as if you’re linking to Facebook posts. You should change this to link directly to the WaPo site itself, not re-route it through Facebook. It’ll look much more reliable/solid from a sourcing POV.

Kkukucka (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)