User:Aemoe85/State violence/Grackle.cackle Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead

Guiding questions:

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content

Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?
Is the content added up-to-date?
Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?
Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization

Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
Are images well-captioned?
Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?
How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
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?
Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
What are the strengths of the content added?
How can the content added be improved?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info[edit]

Whose work are you reviewing?

Aemoe85

Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Aemoe85/State violence
Link to the current version of the article (if it exists): State violence

Evaluate the drafted changes[edit]

Lead[edit]

I like your addition to the lead-- it makes sense and adds information to the main article. It also provides a solid outline of the content you intend to add to the article. Maybe in the lead, you might reference all of the sub topics you intend to add?

Content[edit]

Love where you're taking the article, it definitely addresses equity gaps. Curious about maybe adding in a sub-section about poverty as well? as a form of state violence.

I would also recommend maybe zooming the lens out to be a little less U.S.-centric and examining forms of state violence that are more common to other contexts, like what you mentioned about Israel. The Arab spring comes to mind. State-sponsored genocides. internment camps and the like. Ethnocides and instances of cultural suppression (boarding schools, language suppression, etc)-- this would all fit pretty neatly under colonialism. Surveillance. State responses to indigenous or minority sovereignty movements. taxation (that one is maybe controversial, or considered differently in different contexts)? Corporal punishment in state institutions or as punishment for crimes. Ooooh, union busting too: like, states sending out their military peeps to bust strikes. Since your chosen article is basically a stub (right, i think i'm using that word correctly) the world is kinda your oyster which is cool.

Tone and Balance[edit]

It feels hard to provide feedback about this with the current state of the draft, but maybe initially i'd recommend adopting as global of a perspective as possible?

Sources and References[edit]

The link for reference #4 is broken

beyond that, i'd just recommend continuing to build your bibliography.

Organization[edit]

You have a few typos in your lead section. The organizational layout you've provided so far looks good. There's a few places where I think the nesting order might be backward (e.g. i think police brutality would go under prison industrial complex and not vice versa? or maybe it would all go under something like 'judicial violence and policing')

Overall impressions[edit]

Excited to see where you go with this. Mostly just the obvious feedback-- continue fleshing out the material, adding to the bib, checking for typos. Expanding focus to be as global as possible.

Thank you for your feedback. Adding poverty is a great idea. As much as I love the other ideas that you gave, I'm trying to focus on maybe three or so as to not get overwhelmed. Turns out that adding to a stub comes with its own unique challenges. lol -Aemoe85

Thank you for your feedback. I think you have presented several great ideas . Honestly we probably have too many headings as is. I agree we need to take a look at the organization of our headings and subheading. Good catch on the typos and broken links. Thanks again -Skyjay999