User:Shemley1823/2016 Senegalese constitutional referendum/PatrickTheveny Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Shemley1823


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shemley1823/2016_Senegalese_constitutional_referendum&veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template&redirect=no


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 2016 Senegalese constitutional referendum

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead is clear and concise, although it is a direct copy of what was already written on the original wikipedia page. It appears a citation was added to the lead, though, which is definitely a positive. The lead is still indicative of the articles contents, even after the new additions were made, and runs into no issues as far as being overly detailed.

As far as the content being added to the article, the main alteration is definitely necessary. For a wikipedia page with a topic as a specific as the "2016 Senegalese constitutional referendum" having the specifics of the referendum is a must. Including all 15 proposed alterations to the constitution as opposed to the mere 5 that the article previously had, and seemingly rectifying the 5 that were previously added to be more accurate is a good addition. The reference section, which is decently expansive as it seems 7 articles have been added to the reference list now, all seem to be fairly up to date with all articles having been written in the past 5 year (topic guarantees recently written articles). The addition of a backlash section is a nice touch, as are two short sections explaining little nuances of bill that have been amended. Interesting that the state is actually pushing for a national religion, as opposed to our nation which guarantees a difference in state and church. The article does deal with an equity gap. It pertains to Senegalese politics, an under-covered area. Also the article that already exists is clearly lacking in content, so the decision to edit this page in particular makes this an even more relevant article as far as the equity gap.

In terms of tone and balance there does not seem to be any clear agenda that the author is pushing here, as everything stated is fairly neutral. The backlash section highlights the flaws that have been found in the bill, but does so in a manner that is factual rather than subjective. The incumbent presidents failure to cede office and comply with the new term limit is highlighted twice which may be overweighted, as that section could probably be combined with the backlash section.

As stated early, the topic chosen here essentially guarantees that all of the sources will be from recent sources so that is obviously not a concern here. They seem to be the most relevant information regarding the topic, and all seem to be legitimate. From what I can tell all of the sources have information that has been accurately transferred into the edits made to this wikipedia page. The 3rd citation is accurately placed into the article body background section, the 4th citation is depicted in both the backlash section and the and the shortening of term section. In terms of references this seems to be good. Links work although hard to click on them due to weird feature of the sandbox that highlights the entirety of the reference section that makes it hard to click on.

The sections have been added in a section that makes sense to me, as the new additions to the constitution are listed first, then contextualization and an evaluation of those additions is follows. This topic, as I mentioned before, is pretty niche so it seems like you're covering a lot of bases as far as vital knowledge concerning the topic.

There is no media or pictures included, which could be something you add as you progress past the draft process.

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)