User:Adriana.Santiago16/Human rights in Tanzania/Joseph Rivero 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? (provide username)  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? Yes, the lead has been updated and reinforced with a better description of what Human rights in Tanzania are.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, the lead includes an introductory sentence and describes the article's topic and gives a little peak into what appears in the article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, it does.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the information included in the lead is later explained in detail in the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, the content added by the peer is relevant to the topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes, the content is up to date, the majority of the sources used range from 2005 to 2020, only a few sources are from 1995 to early 2000's.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No, all the content is relevant and improves the article.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, the article's topic is human rights in Tanzania so it covers a lot of topics related to underrepresented populations and topics.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, the content added is neutral.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, the topics and claims in the article are very informative and are not represented in biased way.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No, all view points regarding human rights in Tanzania are very well represented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, it only educates the reader about the different human rights problems occurring in Tanzania and it does so in an informative way and doesn't do it in a persuasive way to try and make the reader be in favor of only one position.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, the article is backed by a lot of sources that are different from the sources in the original article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes, they are thorough.
 * Are the sources current? Yes, the majority of the sources range from 2005 to 2020, and only a few of them range from 1995 to the early 2000's.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, it does.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, the links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes, the content is well organized and easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are only a few gramatical and spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes, the article is well organized and divided into sections that point the reader into the major topics.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? There are no images.
 * Are images well-captioned? There are no images.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? There are no images.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? There are no images.

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? Yes, the article is better organized and the information that was added makes the content and information better.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The strengths are that the content added improves the article by providing the reader with more information in each section and explains more what each section is about.
 * How can the content added be improved? The content is already very good so there isn't many improvements that could be made other than maybe adding pictures.