User:Gonzalez.selinav/Citizenship of the Democratic Republic of Congo/Davitg13 Peer Review
Peer review
[edit]This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
General info
[edit]- Whose work are you reviewing? Gonzalez.selinav
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Gonzalez.selinav/Citizenship of the Democratic Republic of Congo
Lead
[edit]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?
Lead evaluation
[edit]The lead does not seem to be there yet which is understandable as it may be better to write the article first and then go back to the lead and complete it in order of the article itself.
Content
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? Very relevant and important/informative content
- Is the content added up-to-date?the content does seem to be up to date or at least seems to reflect the newest material that is available regarding the topic
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?there could be more information on the history and perhaps a statistical analysis of the reality of citizens in Congo (distribution, growth, immigration/emigration) could be a useful addition
Content evaluation
[edit]I think overall the content is reliable, works, and is rather recent considering the restrictive topic that it may be with limited sources. I do think there can be statistical analyses and sources pertaining to that, which could aid in understanding how citizenship has changed or progressed and how it is distributed in Congo today.
Tone and Balance
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral?Very neutral and well written
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The content does not seem biased and is factual
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think there could be more development on logistical aspects and today's reality of citizenship and its distribution
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No it does not
Tone and balance evaluation
[edit]The tone is one of the greatest strengths alongside the balance as both are no biased and are neutral. The speech is articulate and everything seems very factual with no need for argumentation and thus bias. Overall, great work!
Sources and References
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?Yes there is always citations that are reliable
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
- Are the sources current? Some of them may be older like 2001 but the others are more recent. I can see how it may also be hard finding constantly-updated materials on the information that is quite specific
- Check a few links. Do they work? Yes!
Sources and references evaluation
[edit]I already mentioned how given that the topic is very specific there may be a difficulty finding constantly-updated sources, thus given this, I think you have done a good job at compiling some rather recent sources that work and are reliable.
Organization
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?Yes everything is clear, concise and articulate
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No, so far I did not catch any mistakes
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the organization seems fine however I do think that it would be good to add more subsections and delve deeper into the details and questions concerning citizenship
Organization evaluation
[edit]The article is well-written with no mistakes that I could catch. Overall everything seems to be clear and concise and written in a clear manner. I do think hat there can always be more subsections and you could delve-deeper into the topic to discover more historical and statistical information.
Images and Media
[edit]Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The article does include a picture of a passport which seems to be a good addition as it helps visualize what the Congolese passport looks like
- Are images well-captioned? I believe so
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes
Images and media evaluation
[edit]The image seems to comply with all the rules and is quite useful in showing the passport and adding information to the article. It could also be a good way to discuss the strength of the passport itself internationally which could be added as a subsection since there are many studies on this. The caption and copyright rules also seem well off without any issues.
For New Articles Only
[edit]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
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? The sources seem to be quite well-selected and I think there could be some additions made
- 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 it does seem to be logical and accurate
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, it is linked to the general page of the Democratic Republic of Congo
New Article Evaluation
[edit]This article is an important one as other countries also have their own, developed pages on citizenship. i think it is an important topic and you have compiled a good list of sources despite this potentially being challenging given how it may be a restrictive topic itself. The sources seem rather recent and reliable but there could be additions to it too! The flow of the article so far seems good and again, there could be further subsections developed to make it even more logical.
Overall impressions
[edit]Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes the content is quite useful and insightful. I think there could be much more to add and I am sure it will be added, making the article even richer. I think the topic is quite an important aspect of the article and should have been addressed!
- What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are the clarity of the information, mostly they are recent as they can be (given how restrictive the topic could be), and the material is written in a neutral and appealing way! I also appreciate the incorporation of visuals as they always help during articles and add further informational element to them.
- How can the content added be improved? I think there could be more information added to this article such as incorporation of perhaps how the idea of citizenship and its qualifications have changed over time, what the realities of it are today etc. There could also be a comparative and shorter aspect to the article showing how these citizenship qualifications are similar to or differ from others in Africa etc. You could also add a section on the strength of the citizenship/passport (there are some studies on this which I find quite interesting!)
Overall evaluation
[edit]Overall, the article seems to be on track and is on a good start. There is incorporation of quality sources, neutral language, balanced presentation and I do not see a major problem with it. There could always be more information and I made some suggestions that will hopefully be useful. I think ti is also important to keep in mind how this topic can be restrictive as not many sources may be available so the work that has been done so far is great!