User:Yesenia23pinon/Ancestral land conflict in Botswana/Liliana.Guti Peer Review

Liliana Gutierrez's 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? Yesenia23pinon
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yesenia23pinon/sandbox

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
The lead does include an introductory sentences identifying key players, and the region involved. It does not provide a brief description of the different sections of the article, such as the significance of diamond exports, but that can probably wait under those sections are filled out. The lead does provide a good overview of the legal issues of land in the country, but may focus too much on it. Overall, I can read the lead and have a general idea of what could be in the article, which is really good.

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
The contents is relevant to the topic, but could also include an update on the issues in 2020, such as a portion that talks whether or not the situation has changed or has stagnated. The article explains the development of land issues in relation to the San people, but I think it might need more in explaining why the lack of a people reserve was crucial in creating certain issues. The addition of the diamond exports issue added to the topic and has the potential to add another dimension to the issue of land rights.

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 article does not push for a main argument, and presents the facts in a clear manner that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. The article provides more than one explanation on why the GOB decided to relocate the San people, which is useful. I think the viewpoints presented are balanced, and that the article can be described as neutral.

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 sources used are both updated and varied, coming from academic journals and websites. I check the links and they all work. Source five comes from an organization who may itself be biased, so I am uncertain if it can be a reliable source, but the other sources looks pretty great.

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
I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors, and the information is presenting in a clear manner. The content does begin with the origination of the problem, and the ways in which the problem has developed. I do think, however, that some sentences can be separated into two or slightly altered.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, the article provides information on the issue of land in Botswana, identifying key actors involved. The article also establishes a great timeline for the development of this conflict. I can leave this page with a general understanding of the topic. The neutral tone is good, considering how hard it can be to talk about topics surrounding minorities rights and government. An addition of the issues post-2012, along with a clearer explanation of the the legal protections between a game reserve and a people reserve could help clarify whey these issues have arised.

~