User:I am Osigwe/1993 Nigerian presidential election/Shenali.P 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

 * I am Osigwe / Adaudo Osigwe
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: 1993 Nigerian presidential election

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
 * 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? Somewhat. Includes intro, results and references.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It's concise, and will probably be developed more.

Lead evaluation
A good start to the article! It clearly addresses the who, what, when, where and why of your piece. It would be helpful to see a quick overview of why the 1993 elections were significant as an overall political moment - ex. the end of a relative period of democracy into military rule and conflict/coup, and what the overarching effects for Nigeria's political climate were.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, but it definitely needs more historical context and an explanation of the politicians involved - i.e their platforms, who Mashood is, what he stood for.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Not quite. But we have time, so I'm sure you are working on adding this.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I would like to see more of a breakdown of the sections you plan to write.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes!
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
I would just be weary of words like 'tainted' as that appears to bias your perspective - maybe saying something like the elections faced serious corruption allegations.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes!
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes.
 * Are the sources current? Yes.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Sources and references evaluation
Good job on sources and referencing!

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 evaluation -
None added yet.

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? Yes
 * 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? Yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes

New Article Evaluation
Overall, you definitely meet notability requirements and have incorporated wikipedia's format for references, infoboxes, sections, etc. The links are definitely helpful but I would caution being overly dependent on links - sometimes, you link to info that could also be incorporated into your own article!

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
Overall, this is a good start. I definitely think you need to add more content in regards to sections, and outlining the logical/comprehensive flow of your article. However, I think you do a great job with references and links, and this is definitely the making of a strong new article!