User:Danielna418/Thomas Sankara/Ofarrell1998 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): Danielna418
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Danielna418/Thomas Sankara

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: No
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: No
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No
 * 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?: Unsure, no sources used.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No. However, use of more specific titles could be helpful. It was initially unclear as to whether the writer was posting about governments posts in Sankara's government or the posts he served in other governments.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Somewhat. There does seem to be a slight bend in favor of Sankara, but without sources its hard to tell whether that's because he was really a good leader or if the sources were biased.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Not really. The section only talks about Sakara's position under another leader and leaves little space for debate because of the specific nature and time period.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There are portions that seem to be slightly in favor of Sankara, but again without sources it's hard to tell whether or not this is just a factual telling of what happened.

==== Tone and balance evaluation: There seemed to be a considerable amount of positive content regarding Sankara, but again without sources it's hard to see if this is accurate to historical accounts or biased writing. ====

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? No (No sources present)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No (No sources present)
 * Are the sources current? No (No sources present)
 * Check a few links. Do they work? No (No sources present)

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * 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? Yes, only one section

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media: No media or images added


 * 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
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? Somewhat. The added content is quite short, but it does add important detail about a specific time period in Sankara's life
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Use of dates and specific detail make the section easy to follow and understand, helping readers better understand the arc of his life.
 * How can the content added be improved? Sources must be added for the whole article. The author could also probably add a little bit more detail or context about the time period as I found the section a bit abrupt without any background info.

Overall evaluation
'''The section was well written and easy to understand. However, it was quite short. Maybe add a little bit more detail and make sure to check your sources.'''