User:NChristophers/African Virtual University/Srenman 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: User:NChristophers/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * I believe that the lead could be updated to include the new content about neocolonialism in the article. The introduction paragraph right now only gives a brief summary which works with the little content on the original article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes! I get a general sense of the topic from the introductory sentence.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No! The lead could be improved by including the new headers you introduced in the article.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, everything in the lead seems relevant.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * I think he lead is concise and could maybe even use a little bit more substance.

Lead evaluation
Overall I think the lead is effective but maybe a little too short. I would expand to include your new section about Neocolonialism and maybe even another sentence about the history. The original article had very little information so an expansion might be needed.

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?

Content evaluation
I think that all the content is relevant and up to date. I think that since you are adding a section about Neocolonialism another section about the positives of the university might be helpful, almost giving two points of view. The content added is up to date. There was little to begin with so any additions will honestly be an improvement.

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?

Tone and balance evaluation
The article maintains a neutral tone throughout. I think you could be walking a fine line with the Neocolonialism but the research that is there seems to be pretty unbiased. I think I would just highlight some positives of the university as well to make the article more balanced.

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?

Sources and references evaluation
All of your sources look scholarly which is good! The links checked out as well.

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?

Organization evaluation
I liked the organization of the article. There wasn't much to move around from the previous article so you got a blank slate. I didn't notice any grammatical errors but I liked the breakdown of sections to 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?

Images and media evaluation
N/A

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?

New Article Evaluation
N/A

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?

Overall evaluation
I like the start of your project! The history section of the original article needed so much more information. There really wasn't much to work with at all. I think after you are done it will be a much more well-rounded article. I think just adding all your sources and fleshing out some of those main sections like the introduction, history, and AVU in practice will be really helpful. Nice work!