User:Andrew32198/2002 Mombasa attacks/TimTom05 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? User:Andrew32198 (Andrew Henderson)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Andrew32198/2002 Mombasa attacks (Draft), 2002 Mombasa attacks(Actual Article)

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
It seems that the draft article has not actually been published. However, when looking at the actual wikipedia article that has already been done, it seems that the lead does include a concise and clear introductory sentence that gives the reader enough description on what the article is about. The lead does not seem to overly detailed, and doesn't include any information that is not present in the article, but it does give a brief description on the major sections that is included in the article.

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?

Content evaluation
Content wise, I couldn't tell you, because the article has not been published. On the actual article, all the content seems quite relevant. Just incase the user has added anything onto it.

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
On the article, there doesn't seem to be any biased information or a particular position on the subject. It stays generally unbiased and too the point on getting the information to the reader. The article doesn't seem to be trying to persuade the reader to some ulterior motive. Really, the only thing that seems to be lacking is how underrepresented the "International Response" section is.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
When it comes to the Sources and References of the article, they all seem to work, are current and reliable. I do not know if the any new sources were added by the user.

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 content on the article does seem to be well-written. It checks all the boxes in that the article seems to written clearly, concisely and is easy to read and follow. Reading through the article, I did not notice any major or glaring grammatical or spelling errors, which is always good. Finally, the article is broken down into many sections, both major and minor. Making the article pretty well-organized.

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?

Images and media evaluation
My peer did not add any new images or media, but the images on the article are well-captioned, adhere to copyright regulations (from Wikipedia itself), and are laid out in an 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
Overall, the article seems to be in an above average quality. I only wish I could see what my peer added to the article (I picked this article before realizing that it had not been published, and probably finished this review before it was finally published). So it is very hard to actually give helpful criticism in how his work has improved the article. Really, all I can say is that the "International Response" section should be beefed up a bit, and maybe add a couple more images if possible.