User:TimTom05/Corruption in Botswana/Macykgrimsley Peer Review

Peer review
User- TimTom05

Subject- Corruption in Botswana

The Lead has fantastic/specific information, but that it is all it provides. It is serving as a one-sentence answer to a study guide question as is. It needs to be more like an opening paragraph. Needs detail and relevance.

Most content is missing, but it seems you have your sights set on a very relevant and up-to-date focus of the subject. Great start!

The "Extent" section is confusing. What do you mean by extent? Why do these factors matter? The tone is so neutral that it is only facts. I need to know the "why" and "so what"?

Strong sources.

Organization is really confusing at this point; it does not flow from idea to idea. The headers of the sections are also not specific and distracting. The grammar is good where it exists! It just needs an outline that includes why these things are important.

Needs media that is not a random flag; could be any country because it is labeled "political corruption." Media could support your thoughts.

I think your strongest suit is finding factual information and remaining unbiased. Watch out for being so unbiased that readers are left without understanding the significance of corruption in Botswana. Why did you write about Botswana? Who does this affect? Who has influenced this? What does the future look like?

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:

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?

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?

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?

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?

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?

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