User:Kchiuc/Nonprofit organization laws by jurisdiction/Pscil Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Kchiuc


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Kchiuc/Nonprofit organization laws by jurisdiction
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Nonprofit organization laws by jurisdiction

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?

Yes, the new lead highlights the the topic clearly and concisely. The lead does a good job contextualizing the matter without being overly detailed. It does not include a brief description of the major sections, but as it becomes more developed and apparent I would imagine the lead to incorporate that in the same manner.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

The content added is significantly relevant to the topic, there is only one country from the continent of Africa listed on the original Wikipedia page. Overall, the content is up to date and relevant to the topic. Considering that Africa, is an entire continent made up of significant variation in frameworks and ideologies, it is directly addressing Wikipedia's equity gaps.

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?

Yes, the content is neutral, especially in regard to the discussion of Kenya, where there is an identification of both pros and cons of the NGO Coordination Act and its relevance in maintaining legal recognition. Overall, the information is presented in a factual manner.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

The sources are functional and come from reliable sources, some directly from NGOs within that country. As research progresses, I would like to see more sources for example, two Kenyan NGOs, that way we can try to create a more informed outlook. Overall, I think the sources listed are excellent, but I would like to see more in the final. Perhaps, you can look into the history of the countries you are adding in regard to the the evolutionary legal landscape.

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?

The content is well-written and there appear to be no errors. It is concise, clear, and easy to read. As research progresses, I am sure we will see more organization and additional sections to draw out important topics.

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?

The content is reliable, credible, and informative, while solving the equity gap on Wikipedia and maintaining a neutral voice Overall, I really enjoyed the topic and I am excited to learn more in the final version. I think you have a really strong draft and have already improved the quality of the article, you just need more content. Excited to see the final! :)

-Lauren H.