User:Bdickison/Education in Equatorial Guinea/Cedobbs 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? Brittany Dickison
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bdickison/Education in Equatorial Guinea

Lead
There is not a lead to edit as it appears Brittany is making contributions to an existing article.

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * There is not a lead to edit.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * There is not a lead to edit.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * There is not a lead to edit.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * There is not a lead to edit.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There is not a lead to edit.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Everything in your sandbox is relevant to the article topic and nothing was distracting or didn't belong.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Content was up-to-date.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * More content is needed (see suggestions at bottom of the page) but great start so far.

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?
 * You've done a good job of making sure not to over-represent any viewpoints or have any biases in your additions to the article. You also do a good job of not trying to persuade the reader one way or the other.

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?
 * The sources that you cite all appear to support the claims you make in the article and I checked that all the links in them work. They only problem was that the first link in your 4th citation does not take you to anything but the link right after it does. Your sources are up to date, thorough, unbiased, and I do not think you are missing any citations.

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?
 * Information is kinda just in one giant paragraph right now. As you add more information make sure it all gets organized.

Images and Media: NA
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: NA
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 info-boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discover-able?

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?
 * You've added content that definitely adds to the overall quality of the article. I think your clear and concise writing if one of your strengths and that the content could be improved by adding more of it.
 * I think that you’ve done a very good job of building off of what the original article already had and that you have identified some areas where it was lacking and added in more information about those. For example, the enrollment rates for each education level.  I do not think that there are any specific changes you should make to your article besides continuing to find more information. I think it would be really interesting to find out information about the curriculum they teach at schools in Equatorial Guinea and that would give you a lot to write about in your article. Finally, I think you pulled from some good sources and after looking over them I’ll probably check a few of them such as Data World Bank and UNICEF when I look for more information for my article.