User:Hollystevenson4/Sub-Saharan Africa/Maddywhit24 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? Hollystevenson4
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Hollystevenson4/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the lead hasn't been updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, it does, the lead is a little on the longer side however, it is a long article.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes, the lead does a good job giving a summary of what the article talks about.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, the lead is good.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is a little overly detailed, but the article's length makes it okay.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, however not much content was added at all.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? I believe so again, I cannot find much of the content that was added.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, the content kind of cuts off which confuses me.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, it deals with a lot of the Sub-Saharan African people who are underrepresented.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes, it is all straight up facts.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, there are only facts.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? There is a lot that is underrepresented but that's because a lot of the content is missing.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, the content added is fine.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, however there is only two sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes the sources are thorough and relate to the topic.
 * Are the sources current? One of them is not, the other one didn't have a date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, the sources are all from different sites and authors.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes they all work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content isn't all there but from what I read it is easy to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No it does not.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? There is barely any added but the top section I am not sure where that will go.

Images and Media
My peer didn't add images or 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? No, because there is barely any content added.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The part at the top is strong and sourced and will be helpful for readers, however the other section is not there.
 * How can the content added be improved? If the content was finished and the other section was fully written I believe it would be improved.