User:NChristophers/African Virtual University/Monicajohnson224 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)NChristophers
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:African Virtual University

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? There is nothing added from this year but there are a couple of articles from 2017 so it is a little up to date.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?No, the introductory statement is a tad hard to follow and I believe is missing some information and details.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? There are no major sections so technically no.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is under detailed and needs a lot of work.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? I am not sure what was added but everything that was added was a improvement because the article does not provide much of anything.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes technically.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?There is a lot of missing details, the article is dramatically underdeveloped and needs further explanation on what the AVU has to offer and how it became to be.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes it does lead any one way, but maybe that is because there is not a lot of information to begin with.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No that I have seen.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Everything is a little underrepresented, there is little to no information on this article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? There is no persuasion or bias.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? I believe there are some pretty reliable sources.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? No, a lot of the sources are not referenced on the article itself.
 * Are the sources current?Yes the sources are current.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes the sources do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? No the content if added is not clear, concise or easy to read. The information is lacking when it comes to providing information in a organized way.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There are no major errors grammatically or spelling wise.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is not well organised and there is a lot of missing information.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media (NO NEW IMAGES WERE ADDED)


 * 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? It has a few but there are some that do not work so it makes the others seem sketchy, but technically yes.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are enough sources to make the article believable as a notable source but not enough information in the article itself.
 * 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?No it does not contain any infoboxes, it does have section headings but does not feature other articles.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No it does not link to other articles in the actual description or in the sources.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? No, it needs a lot more information and cohesion.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Some information was provided so we had a little background to follow.
 * How can the content added be improved? There needs to be more information and research done to add the the background we receive.