User:Bdickison/Education in Equatorial Guinea/NChristophers Peer Review

General info

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

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * As of now, there is not really a lead. There is just one paragraph.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * An introduction sentence would be nice, instead of just running into the "ministry of education" part.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * since there is only one section, no.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no lead in this section
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * no

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Bdickison did update sources
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * perhaps consider tracing the establishment of schools. Did they start under a colonial government? Did a new independence government start them? This way you could include the theme of colonialism into this article. Maybe even consider adding a new section entitled "colonialism and education."

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * good neutral, factual tone.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * no
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * good job of using reliable sources for each claim.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * While your sources are reliable, I bet you could find even more sources using the TCU database. This could give you perspectives beyond merely statistical data from organization websites.
 * Are the sources current?
 * many of the sources are very current.
 * Links work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * overall good.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Right now the content is largely a string of facts. Consider grouping the facts by commonality. Maybe consider analyzing trends (attendance rates across several years).

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * no
 * 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?
 * yes
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I bet you could find more academic sources that talk about education in Equatorial Guinea in a less statistical light. These articles might give a history of the education system, some of its major reforms, or perhaps its current relation to political developments in the country.
 * 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?
 * not really. perhaps you could add some of these visual sources.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes, the additional facts do add value to the original article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Bdickison does a good job of providing additional sources and information on the topic.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * perhaps giving a wider perspective on Equatorial Guinea education (its historical, colonial, and political aspects, not merely its statistical aspects) could improve the quality of your contribution.

Overall evaluation
Nice job and keep up the good work.

Nick Christopherson