User:NChristophers/African Virtual University/Macykgrimsley Peer Review

Peer review
I am reviewing NChristophers. African Virtual University

The Lead has been updated. There is a description of the concept, countries involved, and a very brief history. It is concise, but it is missing the punchline; why does this matter? What is the importance?

The content is under construction! It has been updated, and I can tell work is being done. I think you know that it is very empty right now. I would recommend a section about international relevance or something to tie this subject in to a bigger picture.

The tone seems really neutral, but I do not know if the reason for its creation is going to sound negatively biased once more information is added. It currently reads as though this is in response to just another African health crisis. I would make sure to elaborate on why these countries had these issues that needed a response and emphasize African strength in responding to it.

Sources are working and credible! I can tell you are very intentional with ensuring factual basis.

Organization seems clear! As I mentioned, before the References, I would say you could include something that connects this subject to a larger picture. Ex: international implications or how this will change XYZ.

Needs images, but I bet you will be able to find good content. Of course a map would be my first suggestion.

You have a very strong outline and reliable sourcing. This just needs love and time, but it looks great! Only suggestion is stay cognizant of how you word issues that impact African countries and make sure to be holistic in explaining the roots of the problem.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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
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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?