User:Andrew32198/2002 Mombasa attacks/Monicajohnson224 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) Andrew32198
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:2002 Mombasa attacks

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it is very clear and concise.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the article provides a synopsis.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? I think the article is very concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? There was no content added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? There is no content added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?Not that I have seen.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It seems neutral, I think facts were listed more than opinions and that it is a good article.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? I do not personally believe anything is biased if it is true.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The idea of terrorism is over represented in my opinion and I only think that because if I did not know about this area i would believe there were more terrorist than anything else. I believe there should be more clarification.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? I think it may mislead people to believe that this is a dangerous area but since the information is true it does not purposefully persuade the audience, I just believe that there should be a statement providing information on the terrorist and the division in that particular region.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? To my knowledge there is no new content.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? To my knowledge there is no new content.
 * Are the sources current? The sources are a bit outdated but it happened awhile back so that is to be expected.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The links work!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content is concise, clear and very easy to read. I think that a few more things regarding the terrorist group needs to be explained or elaborated on.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I do not see any major grammatical or spelling errors.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think the article is well organized and easy to follow. It presents who did it and where, while providing the response the attack received.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (HE DID NOT ADD IMAGES)


 * 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. (IT IS NOT A NEW ARTICLE)'''


 * 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? There was no new content so I would say the article has not been improved.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Definitely a good article and it has really good organisation.
 * How can the content added be improved? Definitely needs more information and elaboration, the points being made can be misconstrued and there has to be more information that is missing,