 |
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: LeadGuiding questions:
ContentGuiding questions:
Tone and BalanceGuiding questions:
Sources and ReferencesGuiding questions:
OrganizationGuiding questions:
Images and MediaGuiding questions: If your peer added images or media
For New Articles OnlyIf the draft you’re reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.
Overall impressionsGuiding questions:
Examples of good feedbackA 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. Additional ResourcesCheck out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions. |
- Whose work are you reviewing?
Ebeline23
- Link to draft you’re reviewing
- Youth Criminal Justice Act:
Evaluate the drafted changes
[edit]
Lead
The lead gives a pretty clear overview of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It begins with showing the act’s purpose and its role in replacing the previous legislation. However, I believe the lead do a better job on reflecting fully in depth what will be covered in the article. For example, it could summarize a few of the major sections like “Extrajudicial Measures,” “Right to Counsel,” and “Sentencing Options,” instead of just giving a one-sentence description. Also, it could help to add some information about WHY the Act was created. Maybe say how it aimed to make youth justice more rehabilitative and less punishing. Overall, the lead is detailed and concise. It needs a bit of editing, but overall pretty good!
Content
The article has a lot of great detail. The sections on sentencing principles and extrajudicial measures are very well written and strong. They show how the Act tries to balance rehabilitation and accountability. On the other hand, there is lots of detail and content, so it could feel a bit overwhelming to read. I think that some of paragraphs could be summarized a bit more or maybe grouped together. For example, you could combine all the non-custodial sentencing options under one subheading. The article speaks on issues of equity and fairness regarding Indigenous youth. I think that could be expanded on addressing on how the Act deals with bigger systemic problems…. for example, how race can play a role in who is/isn’t getting punished. That could make it feel more relevant and up to date.
Tone and Balance
The tone is mostly neutral and in line with Wikipedia’s expectations. The writing avoids emotional or judgemental language.
Sources and References
There are a lot of sources which is amazing! However, I noticed that the citation style is not consistent throughout the whole article. It could help to use the Wikipedia’s citation templates. Moreover, the sources seem reliable and strong. Some sources have tags that suggest certain evidence is missing, so fixing those would definitely help the article.
Organization
The article has lots of detail and is relatively organized, but it could definitely be cleaned up a bit. There are places where longer paragraphs could be broken into shorter sections. For instance, the Sentencing Options part is very big and it could be divided into a few smaller subheadings…. (“Custodial Sentences”, “Community Based Sentencing”, and “Non-Custodial Options”). I think adding a short summary at the end of each major section could help readers follow along a bit better and make sure the readers fully comprehend what they just read. Overall, it is organized well!
Images and Media
There should definitely be more pictures incorporated into this article. It could help to split up some of the reading so it does not feel too long. If possible maybe incorporate pictures of the YCJA document?
Overall Impressions
In summary, this is a very well-researched and thorough article. The content is extensive and accurate. I was intrigued while reading the whole article, which means most likely other readers are as well. The main areas for improvement are the structure, breaking up sections, adding some more new research, adding some images, and simplifying some of the dense legal writing. In the long run, it is a really amazing article and I enjoyed reading and reviewing it.
