User:Jordanminer/Urban rail transit in Africa/Jagcataldo 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) Jordanminer
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Jordanminer/sandbox

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?

Lead evaluation
The lead is good. It provides a good overview of the article without getting lost in detail. I think it might be strengthened by moving the last sentence, “Africa for several decades saw minimal investment in rail infrastructure, in recent years due to urban population growth investment in rail networks has increased.” to the first sentence of the introduction. This sentence is a better reflection of the overall topic and hence would be a stronger start.

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?

Content evaluation
The content of the article was up to date and provided relevant details for an understanding of the subject. The Background section provided a good overview of the history of rail in Africa, but needs to have documentation added to back up the statements. Each countries’ individual sections were well written and provided a clear description of their rail system. Documentation of the individual sections was good.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
Overall, the tone of the article is even and balanced.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
Multiple credible sources were given for each section to document the evidence. They were current, relevant and high quality. As previously mentioned, resources would be a good addition to the Background Section.

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?

Organization evaluation
This article encompasses a lot of content. It organized the material by dividing it into sections based upon the region of the continent and then subdividing the region into countries within it. This organization made the article easy to follow, and helped with processing the amount of information.

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?

Images and media evaluation
Images and media were not used, but perhaps a geopolitical map of the continent for reference would be a nice addition.

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?