User:Ericcabaniss/Bolivia and the International Monetary Fund/Na0umi1901 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): EriccaBaniss
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, it has been updated and reflects the content very well.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it introduces Bolivia's initial relationship with the IMF, their history, and their current status today.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, the Lead is specific and I can easily pinpoint what the article is about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, it does not
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * There is a lot on the topic, but it is not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content added is relevant to the topic
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the content is up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * There does not seem to be any content missing

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes, the content is neutral, the students did a good job with keeping the information informative but not leading to thinking one way.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, there does not seem to be any claims that are heavily biased.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, there is not. I did like all the other subpoints that show the direct effects that each event has on the public.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No, the content simply provides information for the readers

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, there is an extensive list of sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, the sources reflect the topic well
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, a lot of the content is current. Most of it being based on data that references back a couple decades.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes the links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the content added is concise, the layout makes it easier to follow
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * There are no spelling/grammar errors
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes, the content is easy to follow very organizes with the sub-headers.

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Yes they are
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * They are, but it was hard to notice them at first

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?
 * There are many sources and they all represent the topic well
 * 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?
 * It has section headings that make it visually easy to follow although there is a lot of information on the page
 * 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 content is very detailed and represents Bolivia and the IMF well
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Strengths were that the page looks very organized
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
username: Na0umi1901