User:Mdszamrej/Eskom/NChristophers Peer Review

General info

 * Mdszamrej
 * User:Mdszamrej/Eskom

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * no
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * it is concise

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * the content is very relevant
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * incredibly up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * no. Although it might be interesting to make ties to colonialism. I'm sure some academic articles have been written on South African industry and colonialism.

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

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?
 * the sources you have are good. However, beyond news articles and the company's website, I bet you could find some interesting academic articles on this subject, especially as it relates to greater political and historical themes.
 * Are the sources current?
 * yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * no
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes

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
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * no, you could move them so that they are on both sides of the page, instead of all being on just the right-hand side.

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?
 * yes, adding the background on the CEO, as well as some of the company's new policies is a good contribution.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * the added facts help provide more information about the company.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I think there is room to add greater political themes. For instance, the part about "Chinese debt" could be expanded to include things on China's investment in Africa in general. Maybe you could even add in a neocolonialism section relating the company's activities to neocolonial themes. I'd imagine that there are academic papers written on just this topic.

Overall evaluation
Very impressed. I think that your contributions are appropriate, relevant, and well sourced. Nice job.