User:Tdavis47/Architecture of Africa/Emilyhooge 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? Tdavis47
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Architecture of Africa

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
After looking through the Revision History page, I do not believe that Tdavis47 edited anything within the lead paragraph. I believe his edits were concentrated on a specific section within the page itself.

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 content added is most definitely relevant to the topic. Tdavis47 added a whole "Nigeria" section to the Early Architecture Section. This section provided more detail on the Nigerian architecture developments and allowed for any information about Nigeria that was loosely added into other sections to be in one section and therefore easier to read. The content that was added seems to be up to date and various references for the information added was included.

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 content that was added is neutral and does indicate a preference to a specific "side." I actually very much appreciate the way in which the content was added and can definitely seem the ways in which the original article was lacking. The page itself contains a lot of information, but I think that Tdavis47 did a good job of separating the information that was relevant and information that was not and could be expanded upon.

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
The content that has been added has been backed up by reliable sources. I clicked on the links and they do indeed work. I think that the use of various sources to gather information was really well done and should be applauded.

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
After reading through the added content, I haven't found any spelling or grammatical errors. I think, for the most part, the content is well-written. It is very basic and not too complicated. It is very easy to pick information out of and doesn't contain a lot of filler words.

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
One image of the stone structure at Sukur was added. A image that already existed was edited (the Adawama State and Sakur pages were linked in the image description). Both additions were helpful in navigating through the site and the information presented. Additionally, as far as I can tell, the images adhere to the community guidelines and the images do not interrupt the information being presented.

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?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I definitely feel as though Tdavis47 did a good job in adding critical information to the article. The entire Nigeria section was a much needed addition and the attention that he paid to linking the image captions and even adding a whole new image in shows how much time and effort went into this project for him. He also added background information in regards to Nigerian society and although I think that, of course, in time, there will be new information to be added, but at the moment I am very impressed with the additions by my classmate.