User:Aidelprin/Kenneth Kaunda/Aidelprin Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Monkbot


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Kenneth Kaunda - Wikipedia


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kenneth Kaunda - Wikipedia

Evaluate the drafted changes
The article's lead does not have one introductory statement that summarizes the article. The lead does summarize the topic of the article pretty well but the paragraph needs more citations. The lead is concise and it doesn't include information that cannot be found elsewhere in the article. The content is all relevant to the topic but there is some information that is left out, such as (according to another editor) a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize which is a fairly important piece of information. I would say that the content is up to date because most of the recent edits (the most recent edit was less than a month ago) have been adding citations or fixing links to references or adding references. The content also helps close the content gap because it is about an African person which there aren't very many articles on. It is a bit difficult for me to tell if the content is completely neutral or not. The article does not call him a freedom fighter or a dictator, it does tell you how he freed Zambia and it tells you what he did to keep himself in power. While he did things to keep himself in power, making himself a dictator, the article seems to still portray him in a better light than what most people see when they think of a dictator. There needs to be many more citations in the article but there are many reliable sources. The content accurately reflects what the sources say. The links work like they should but there are some sources that do not have any links. Most of the sources are old and from newspapers and many of them are newspaper articles but there are a few books as well. The article is well written and organized with no grammatical errors that I can find. All of the images are relevant to the topic and are well-captioned so that you know exactly what you are looking at. They are also laid out well and adhere to the copy right rules. Overall I would say this is a good article. It is well written, neutral, organized, and it has good sources. The article can improve though by adding more citations.


 * OK, but a few things. First, we can't have all this in one single paragraph--it's almost impossible to read. Second, that lead is very...odd. A sentence, a huge paragraph, another sentence. As for the references and problems: that whole "Post-presidency" section is full of "by whom" and "citation needed" tags, so this is not going to be a "good article" anytime soon. Note also that rather silly "trivia" section, with that weird "Unknown to many" phrase. I just removed that silly bit about Dancing with the Stars. Dr Aaij (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)