User:Sheridanstills/Education in Sierra Leone/Whook17 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? Sheridanstills
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Education in Sierra Leone

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I am not sure if new content has been added. I checked edit history and there was nothing there.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The lead could be more descriptive of what is to come.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation
Solid lead, could use a little work.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Not sure content has been added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? "
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? "

Content evaluation
I assume you will be adding content at a later time, or perhaps I'm just blind.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Not sure content has been added.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? "
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think more information could be added to both adult and tertiary education sections.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No.

Tone and balance evaluation
There seems to be a content gap in the adult and tertiary sections, I would suggest focusing on these during your editing.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? See content questions above.
 * 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? Links on the page currently still work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? See earlier content question.
 * 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
"

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
No images added.

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
I don't think this is a new article.

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
Overall I'm not sure the content has been added at all. I think that the best area for improvement of this article would be in the secondary and tertiary education sections. Other than that, I'm sure the editor has other ideas about what to add to this article.