User:Yonakrug/Women in Nigeria/Kchiuc Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@Yonakrug


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Received as .docx via email


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Women in Nigeria

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * No; in the draft received, the header was "Nigerian Women in Politics" which leads me to believe you are adding a new body section to the article ("Women in Nigeria").
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, the existing introductory sentence does well in that regards.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, the lead does not summarize the article well. One sentence in the Lead in particular seems like it should be part of a body paragraph instead. I believe the article is too expansive for specific details to arise in the Lead.
 * "'For instance, women in Northern Nigeria are more likely to be secluded in the home, than women in Southern Nigeria, who tend to participate more in public life.'"
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * The lead is concise but could use some expansion to include the vast number of sections in the article.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, the content lines up with the general topic. I especially liked the section of "Nigerian women rally against rejection of pro-equality bills".
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, the sources used are all published in the twenty-first century.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The content matches well with the topic, greatly expands on the general topic of women in Nigeria.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes, the article highlights the equity gaps in the role of women in Nigeria.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The content added is strongly neutral and does not lead the reader to take any particular stance.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No, they are no particular claims that do so. I liked that every sentence can be linked to a source; however, large sections of text are referenced by only a single source particularly with Madunagu (2008) and the "Challenges to Tradition" subsection. This may pose a possible bias to readers; one way to fix the issue would be to find supporting references for the points presented by Madunagu (2008).
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, I do not believe so.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * The tone of the content is largely neutral.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, the majority of content is backed up by secondary information. As I mentioned earlier, they are some large blocks of text that are derived from a single source; adding additional citations that confirm the facts will help improve credibility of the section.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, they do.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Yes, they are extremely thorough, coming from a variety of peer-reviewed academic journals and books.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, the sources are all from the twenty-first century.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Yes, the sources include a braod range of scholars that include some historically marginalized individuals.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * All sources appear to be well-credited, coming from established publishers.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes, the links to sources do work.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, the writing is easy to read and concise.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * No, I did not notice any major issues in this regard.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic
 * Yes, the article is well organized and effectively situates the topic.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, the content added has vastly added to the article, which was more of a template than existing.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * I found the depth of material added to be quite substantial and valuable. While there is vast literature and discussion on the role of women in politics, articles detailing country-level data are uncommon and undeveloped usually; this article does well to address the problem. The tone is neutral and is easy to read.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * I would look to expand your supporting citations so that sections of the article is not dependent on a single source. While the single source is a peer-reviewed journal and likely unbiased, adding additional citations that share the same findings will help to ensure neutrality and lessen chance of bias.