User:Whook17/Politics of seychelles/TimTom05 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? User:Whook17
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Politics of Seychelles (Doesn't have a draft, user directly edited the main article)

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
When it comes to the lead of the article, it has been updated to include a better introductory sentence. The sentence seems to be concise and does describe the content of the article. It includes a brief description of what is going to be discussed in the article's major sections and does not include any information that is not present in the article. However, the lead does seem to be a little overly detailed, so a possibility in editing it is to make it a bit more concise.

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
All content added by the user is relevant to the topic of the politics of the Seychelles. It seems to be up-to-date, from my quick glancing of everything added. Finally, there does not seem to be any 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?

Tone and balance evaluation
All content added by the user adheres to Wikipedia's rules. It seems to be neutral and unbiased, with no feeling the writer is trying to persuade the reader of any ulterior belief. The only suggestion I would have for the user, is to add more information to all the sections that deal with the differing branches of the Seychelles. They seem to be a little underrepresented.

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
All new content added by the user is backed up by reliable sources. All their links work, seem to be current and seem to be relatively thorough.

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
The article is organized quite well. It is broken down into many main sections, which are then further broken up in many sub-sections. When it comes to how easy the article can be read, I have to say that it's pretty easy. The content of the article is well-written, meaning that it's clear and concise, with relatively few grammatical or spelling errors.

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 new images were added by the user. That is possibly something that the user can do to enhance his article.

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, all new content added by the user seems to have improved the article. While there is much that the user can still add to his article, the article does have a more "complete" feeling. Really, the only suggestion that I have for the user is to add more references, and to add more content to the sections dealing with the Executive branch, legislative branch and administrative divisions.