User:Cedobbs/Lesotho/Kzabs 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? Cedobbs
• Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Cedobbs/sandbox

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?

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• Is the content added neutral? The content added is extremely neutral. You do a good job of referring to the origins of your information.
• Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? You do a great job of highlighting the most recent developments in Lesotho regarding drought and weather. Have you considered putting more information regarding pre-2000 weather and drought conditions.
• 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? All of your sources are relevant and trustworthy. You do a good job of not letting information go uncited.
• Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
• Are the sources current? Your sources are extremely current and up-to-date.
• 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? There are minimal grammatical errors. A simple read through would fix them, but it does not distract from the flow or readability of your additions. Your work is well-organized and follows a clear path.
• 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 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? The article is great and does a good job of addressing the holes in Lesotho's wikipedia description. Your work on drought leads me to wonder if any of the recent developments have been attributed to climate change. Have you seen any evidence of that? I think it could be an interesting perspective to add to your piece.
• What are the strengths of the content added?
• How can the content added be improved?