Talk:Wilson Katiyo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 5 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stacy.johnson515. Peer reviewers: Aumgirl2024, Mbelden1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
by User: Thee.Outkast

The lead could summarize more about him and what he did during his career in writing. For example, give a brief overall view of what he is known for and or his best work. I see you do not have a lot of sources which isn't your fault because these African writers are overlooked but the ones you have are reliable. Your structure is very good and in the order, it should be. The language is very well written and I like how you get straight to the point with every topic you discuss. Thee.outkast (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Sourcing
 * Structure
 * Language

Peer Review
by User: Nickywithdablicky

The lead is fairly short. I recommend adding a few details to create a concise summary of the rest of the article. I think for this size article, you could use a few more articles. Take a closer look around AUM articles and Jstor. The sources you do have are reliable. The structure is pretty good, however, I suggest taking out the death and listing that under biography because it does need a new section. The language is clear and understandable. I like that you were not repetitive in your writing.--Nickywithdablicky (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Sourcing
 * Structure
 * Language

Peer Review
by User: Aumgirl2024

Aumgirl2024 (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The lead is short and tells about the topic. Maybe you could add more like his major works and awards he won.
 * Sourcing
 * The sources are good and reliable. The second source is a reliable, peer-reviewed academic journal. The last source is from the World Literature Today which is a reliable magazine published at the University of Oklahoma, Norman.
 * Structure
 * I think that the structure is good. The article is neatly organized and easy to read.
 * Language
 * I think that the language is good. Overall, I think your article is good. I'm sure it will get better and better as you expand it.

Peer Review
Lead
 * The lead is very formal and tells me what your article will be talking about.

Content
 * The content is relevant and is something that people need to learn about.
 * There could be some stuff added but it's hard to find sources that backup your information so your content is very good.

Tone
 * The content you had was neutral.
 * You didn't have any bias points which is good.
 * You article was formal and neutral and didn't favor or attempt to favor anyone or any point.

Content
 * Your sources are very reliable and give a lot information to back up your points made in your article.

Organization
 * Your organization is well formatted in your article.

Sourcing
 * You have two reliable sources to make your article notable for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzero10 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
1. Lead:

The lead was a bit short. I feel like it could contain a little more information.

2. Sourcing: There aren't very many sources you have, but the ones you do have a credible and reliable.

3. Structure: The structure of your article is clean and compact. It makes it easy to follow along in the material.

4. Language: The language you used is great. Everything gets straight to the point and readers aren't stuck reading an article for too long.

Overall, I believe your article has great potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbelden1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)