User:EmmaJohn121/Socioeconomic impact of female education/Caclouti 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)
 * EmmaJohn121
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:EmmaJohn121/Socioeconomic impact of female education


 * All comments made in the "Overall Impressions" section as the additions were made to a preexisting section of the article

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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 additions to the article are helpful, however given that the added information is focused specifically on one country it should be in its own dedicated section similar to the section on India. Attempts at further cleaning up the "limitations of impact" section should be focused on, including the clarity of the wording in the preexisting article. Clarification in the third paragraph of the sandbox edits would also be useful, such as instead of saying "some researchers," the researchers should be specified and linked to a source. It might also be useful to include detailed statistics rather than having a sweep statement of "the majority of working women in Saudi Arabia work in traditional female occupations for example...". These additions are strong in providing a larger perspective to the topic and allowing the reader to view a wider range of effects based on the given topic. As previously mentioned, the added content would fit better in a dedicated section rather than as part of the "limitations of impact" as it is focusing on a single country. Sources should also include something more current if possible, with a link needed for the first reference, "Gender Inequality, Income, and Growth: Are Good Times Good for Women?". The content added in the second paragraph should also include links to sources. I will note that the linked sources do appear to be functioning. Ultimately, with some cleaning up, moving around, and potential addition for more details, the additions noted in the sandbox would be very useful in strengthening the original page.