User:Srenman/Gender equality in Rwanda/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? (SRenman)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Srenman/Gender equality in Rwanda

*****

Needed to be said, for editing purposes its very difficult looking at information that you edited, and what was on the wikipedia page to begin with.

It's not clear to me and I shouldn't need to go through the original wikipedia assignment and then comparing it ect. I  know you added information, but what information?

Should be bold, or made much clearer.

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? yes
 * 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? yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? confusing

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? nope
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? nope looks good
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? nope its well done

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? links work

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? just confusing cause I don't know what work is yours
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? nope selling looks good
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? yes according to the current wikipedia

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?

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? yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added? yes
 * How can the content added be improved? bold the work you have done to make it easier for the editor

Overall evaluation]
the overall work of the whole paper is very well done, comes together nicely.

can tell by comparing the current wikipedia and your copy that lots of work has been done. just not clear what. grading the overall page its well done in which all information

is very relevant