Jump to content

User:TimTom05/Corruption in Botswana/Whook17 Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]

Lead

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The lead seems to be in good shape. Formatting could possibly be a little less repetitive.
  • Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Not really, it sort of just jumps in with statistics. A little bit of introduction probably wouldn't hurt.
  • Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? No
  • Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
  • Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is mostly concise.

Lead evaluation

[edit]

Overall good lead. All thats missing is an overview and a better introduction to the topic.

Content

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
  • Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation

[edit]

Content is solid.

Tone and Balance

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added neutral? Yes
  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Not necessarily.
  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

[edit]

Educational tone, good work.

Sources and References

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes.
  • Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? There may be room for some more information.
  • Are the sources current? Mostly
  • Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

[edit]

Solid sourcing.

Organization

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Not that were evident to me.
  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes. I would change "extent" to "perception of corruption" (other articles are titled as such) but other than that it mostly all works.

Organization evaluation

[edit]

Solid organization. Revise some of the headings.

Images and Media

[edit]

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

  • Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? No
  • Are images well-captioned? Only one image.
  • 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]

This article might benefit from an image or two.

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? There may be room for more information.
  • 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? Other articles have a little more substance, I think this once could have a bit more as well.
  • Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation

[edit]

solid stuff.

Overall impressions

[edit]

Guiding questions:

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes
  • What are the strengths of the content added? Content is precise and unbiased.
  • How can the content added be improved? More sections, and more information would be helpful. I am not sure what all is available on the topic though.

Overall evaluation

[edit]

Overall solid start. You're closer than I am to finished.