User:Vleondelavega/Education in Mexico/Bawl Peer Review

General Info:
Reviewing: Vleondelavega

Link: Education in Mexico

Lead
Has lead been updated to reflect new content added by peer(s)?

I don't believe so, will need to update this portion later. Doesn't appear to be to many edits made by my peer so I will focus just upon improving the article on its own

Does the lead include an introductory sentence that is concisely and clearly describe article's topic?

Unfortunately, I would argue that the introduction to this page could definitely use work. Feels a tad bit bland to begin with "Education in Mexico has a long history." I would rather it begin w/ a combination of the first two sentences in order to relay a stronger feel. Perhaps something along the lines of: " Mexico's educational system stems from its foundation of the Royal and Pontifical University of Mexico in 1551, following close suite of the National University of San Marcos in Lima, just months prior."

Although a bit long, something similar to this could be used.

Does the lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Somewhat, but feels more like facts than an overview of the topic.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No, it all seems relevant at least to a certain degree.

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

In this case, I feel as though we should revise our Lead to have a more direct and overview of our entire context. Although we begin to explain the origins of Education in Mexico, we're also not giving our readers a clear message that sums up what we're leading to.

Content
Guiding Questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

For edits previously made, yes they are.

Is the content added up-to-date?

Seems so.

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

There's content that can be rephrased but generally the content stays consistent with the goals of the article.

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 over represented, or underrepresented?

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?