User:Laurenoneil82/2019 Virginia political crisis/Lcordover Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Laurenoneil82
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Laurenoneil82/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

• Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I am talking about the lead that is already in the Wikipedia page. I know that you have not edited the lead and have focused on adding detail into the Wikipedia page. Right now, the lead has not been updated to reflect the content added by my peer. However, I can tell that the lead already is strong. The lead's first sentence has the potential to be restructured because the syntax is off. This is the lead in the Wikipedia article.
• Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, but it is not a concise sentence. Again, the lead should be restructured. You can work on the first sentence easily. The first sentence is long and not concise.
• Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, I believe that the lead is perfect and has all the necessary information.
• Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead has necessary information.
• Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead shares a good amount of information. Someone could read it and know what the 2019 Virginia political crisis was about. There is no need to change the lead besides restructuring the first sentence.

Lead evaluation

I think the lead is looking good. Just the first sentence may need some restructuring.

Content

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, all of the content is relevant to the topic. It all is about the 2019 Virginia political crisis and the three men involved.
• Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, all the content is up-to-date. All of the content comes from 2019, so it is very relevant to today.
• Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? All of the content belongs. There could be more content added about the public's reaction to the scandals. There could also be more content about Herring. Everything that you wrote is very relevant. Very good edits. I like how you included important figure's statements.

Content evaluation

All of the content makes sense on this Wikipedia page and gives the audience a good sense of the 2019 Virginia political crisis. The edits that you added provides more detail to the Wikipedia article.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? Content is neutral.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I did not find any claims that are biased at all.
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? In the entire Wikipedia article, there is no perspective of Northam and how he responded to Virginia with what he said. Overall, it is neutral. But, with what you added, the viewpoints are represented fairly.
• Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No content is added in attempt to persuade the reader one way.

Tone and balance evaluation

Overall, there is a good neutral tone. The content is not persuasive. I would say that the tone works for sure for this Wikipedia article as it is neutral.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the content is backed by reliable sources.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, most sources are from news sources. The sources are thorough.
• Are the sources current? Most sources are from 2019 or 2020, so yes they are current.
• Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Sources and references evaluation

There are a lot of great sources in this Wikipedia article. They all are relevant and fairly new.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is well written and it is broken up nicely into headings.
• Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? In your third major edit, there is an error. "...voicing that:" If you want to use the colon, then take out "that." "That" should not be used if you use a colon. I think it is best to take out the colon and just use "that" because it is easier to follow. The spelling and other grammar sections look good!
• Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The Wikipedia article is broken up nicely into different sections that reflect the major points of the topic.

Organization evaluation

The organization of this article is great, no need to worry about that. Just double check what I said about the quote and the colon. The spelling looks good.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Although my peer did not include the images in the article, the article already has good images.
• Are images well-captioned? Yes, the images reflect the people involved.
• Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes, they adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations.
• Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? The four images are already laid out nicely.

Images and media evaluation

The images that are already in the article are well done and set up nicely. They allow the audience to see the three men involved

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes, you used four reliable secondary sources.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Yes, I think the list of sources is well done. In conjunction with the sources in the Wikipedia article, the list is not too exhaustive and represents the available literature.
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes, the article follows the patterns of other similar articles. I am sure when you publish your changes in Wikipedia, it will follow some heading. It contains all the necessary features within a similar article.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the article links to other articles so that it is more discoverable. The article has several links, especially the people involved in the crisis that links to other Wikipedia articles.

New Article Evaluation

I think that this new article is good because it follows the format of similar articles. Great job!

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Now, the article is more complete because new details are added and new reliable sources.
• What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths of the content added is that there is more detail on politicians and figures that called for Northam's resignation. Another strength is that you really added quotes which will improve the article. By adding direct quotes, the tone in 2019 is really understood and it allows for more reliable information. I like the last edit and how it acknowledged the system of oppression that is still put in place today.
• How can the content added be improved? The content can be more improved by just using more sources to come up with more details about the 2019 Virginia political crisis. There can be more details added about the three men's perspectives on this crisis.

Overall evaluation

Overall, the edits that you made are very good. They have made the article substantially better because there is more detail and more sources. I like how you added quotes because it makes the content more relevant. Also, the quotes give more detail on other people who thought that the men should resign. Great job.