User:NChristophers/African Virtual University/Mdszamrej 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? ( Editing:Christopher) ( Done by Michael Szamrej )
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:NChristophers/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes, a good start at looking at new material.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? No there is no new lead, but appears to be expanding on current topics that is posted on wikipedia
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? A brief description yes, also posted on the current wikipedia site
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? most of the information that has been posted on his sandbox is relevant to his new site
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? not overly worded, appears to be correct amount of information

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes, appears to be well done and meeting guidelines
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Fact checking his articles that he linked, they appear to be up to date
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? does not appear so

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Does not appear to be biased towards one view point or another
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The topic is going off of facts, not his own public opinion
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? not yet
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? nope leaves it open to the reader

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

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes well understood formatting, clear and precise and can understand where he is going with this
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? no errors through proof reading
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? done perfectly

Images and Media
Guiding questions: No New Images


 * 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? very well done
 * What are the strengths of the content added? just keep adding more information
 * How can the content added be improved? just more topics whatever information you can include

Overall evaluation
very well done page, excellent start and looks awesome! great information and topic!