User:Brontyjn/Immigration to South Africa/BGreeen100 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)
 * I am reviewing User: Brontyjn and the article is Immigration to South Africa.
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Brontyjn/Immigration to South Africa
 * Immigration to South Africa

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
- I would say that the lead of the this articles is good and with what Brontyjn added it helped with making easier to read. As a reader, I struggled a lot with getting lost when articles over word their writing. I understand with the lead that it is about immigration, but I would say for next time to make it easier to reader lay it out, detailed and complex.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
- "At present, immigration policy is to retain the current immigration flows, although historically the government of South Africa has aimed to reduce its number of immigrants. Certain immigration laws have shifted since the apartheid. However, some positions of the mid-to-late twentieth century are still in effect, and xenophobia is prevalent."

This quote, I took out from the article, and since we are talking about content, in this article alone there are a lot of sentence or paragraph that just feel like evidence  placed anywhere. I am not trying to say that this should be removed, evidence is good but if placed and analyzed   better could  really power the article.

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
When it comes to immigration, it is already complicated as it is, but I feel like this article alone was underrepresented, but the user Brontyjn added more evidence and it wasn't biased but more informative.

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
- when I reviewed the sources and references, I Clicked through some of the links, and the ones i reviewed, made sure to  check the date so that the evidence is  still valid. The Importance of checking the date is because immigration laws and numbers alone  change very often and making sure our resources are reliable. everything else seemed good, expect for a link in

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
Overall, the organization of this article was alright. Immigration of South Africa was the common topic and it went into detailed.

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 could be more Images, to break down the demographic and it could potentially help readers out by breaking down the processes.

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 article with the help with the user was improved. A suggestion I would give is go more into detail with the numbers and pathways.