User:Adriana.Santiago16/Human rights in Tanzania/ACelesteL 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? Adriana.Santiago16
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Adriana.Santiago16/Human rights in Tanzania

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead section lacked information even before the new information was added, but my peer updated it and now it looks way more complete. It is well structured and describes the article's topics.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is relevant and related to the topic, and it is written in concisely. The article as a whole is about the rights of historically unrepresented groups. I think that a way to improve some more the content of the existing sections is to briefly describe what they are about in the beginning as a way to introduce them.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
There is not a great amount of information added because the article is big and my peer has been working with inline citations, but every new piece of information is written neutrally, in a descriptive tone of the happenings or the "conflict" that the article is bringing a light to and trying to explain. All the viewpoints are represented equally and without bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The live article is missing a whole lot of inline citations, but in the sandbox draft I can see that she went section by section adding many citations to reliable sources. All of the links work (there could be an evaluation to see if there is some of those external links that are needed or relevant to add) and the references vary in date but there is many that are up-to-date, and they do include historically marginalized individuals.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * 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?

Organization evaluation
The article has a very practical organization overall. The new information added is easy to read and I did not see any grammatical or spelling errors. I think that maybe there could be sections added, for instance talking about the movements made for some of the concerns regarding the rights or the oficial organizations involved with these concerns as well.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
I think you chose an article that brings light to very important subjects and that is inclusive of more than just one marginalized group, you're doing so with a great amount of sources and reflecting a very neutral position. Great job adding all the inline citations. Reiterating a bit, I think it could be useful to continue improving the article by adding some brief introductory statements of the concerns presented by sections, so the readers know what does the thing they are reading about is. Also, mentioning some organizations or movements that are officially related to the topics of the article. I think that you are doing a good job so far. Remember to be mindful of grammar and to possibly evaluate if there are some other external links that could be added!