User:Bola0657/Female education in Nigeria/EmilyLSmall 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? Bola0657
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Bola0657/Female education in Nigeria

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
There looks like there is one sentence at the beginning of the section that briefly describes what the article is being based upon. However, there is not really much description of the sections to come and that sentence doesn't have a citation added to it. I'm assuming it's because the draft is still in process :)

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
The content that has been added is relevant to the topic at hand and is up to date. The only thing I would change and I'm not sure if changing it makes sense but when describing the ages of the girls in the religion section I would write out eleven and twelve instead of putting 11 and 12.

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
The tone of the article is neutral and does not persuade readers in favour of one position over 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?

Sources and references evaluation
There are lots of relevant sources and each new piece of content has been properly cited. All of the links are accessible.

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 is well written and there are not grammatical/spelling errors. The only thing that I would change about the layout is adding a heading for references that separates the reference list from the text on religion, it will make the page look cleaner and help to make that last sentence stand out.

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
There hasn't been any media added to the page yet.

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
The content that has been added improves the quality of the article and is properly cited and sourced. The sources that have been used are legitimate and the way that the article is written flows nicely when it is read. I have put a few minor suggestions earlier in my review but other than that the content is well done!