User:Andrew32198/2002 Mombasa attacks/Macykgrimsley Peer Review

Peer review
Reviewing Andrew32198: 2002 Mombasa attacks

I do not see that the Lead has been updated. The Lead's introduction is good in the sense I could reiterate the subject's basis. It includes the hyperlinks to different sections. The Lead states the significance of the hotel, but it does not mention that in the segment dedicated to the hotel attack. The Lead is concise, but it seems too concise. It seems like it brushes over the bare minimum of such a significant incident. I need to be convinced this is worth reading, and I need to know why this was important; I want to understand the incidents, rather than be able to just reiterate the basic idea.

Content is relevant, but there are so many details that could be added. Subject seems very interesting. I would like to see the significance of these sights for attacks discussed, since that is mentioned in the Lead. I bet there is more to add to the international context; it appeared it had last been updated a few months ago. I think there is a lot to be added, but this is a really good start of an outline.

The tone is very neutral and fact-based. I think views are represented, but the religious motives could be explored a bit more to create adamant respect/attention to motives. Make sure to avoid the too-far-removed tone of Westernized thinking. Make sure not to legitimize motives of non-Christian religions.

Sources look great and check out.

Organization is decent, but I think it is choppy at this time. Once there is more information included, I think the flow will be better. There are a lot of distracting grammar issues, and the order of sentences in each paragraph could use attention. They are relevant and insightful, but it is hard to follow.

Image sourcing checks out. I think it could be more visually appealing and helpful if there were a photo of Mombasa on the African continent for better perspective. The plane and guns are interesting to look at, but photos of important victimized sites would be engaging.

This topic is super interesting, and it has a really good backbone; I can tell you understand what you want to focus on, and you chose relevant factors to look to. However, because it is condensed and detailed, I think it needs a lot more detail and current research along with grammar attention. I honestly cannot wait to read this when it is done.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

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?

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?