User talk:Liliananrodriguez

Welcome!
Hello, Liliananrodriguez, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Erik Cervantes' 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? (provide username) Liliananrodriguez Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Liliananrodriguez/sandbox

Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Yes.

Lead evaluation Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? The information about the expansion of diamond exports should be mentioned titled 'Natural Resources' instead of 'Economic Progress.'

Content evaluation Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Yes. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No. Tone and balance evaluation

Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes. Are the sources current? Yes. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes. Sources and references evaluation

Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes.

Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media No images, but should add pictures of diamond mines/trade to illustrate information that the user already added. 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 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?

New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes. What are the strengths of the content added? Very thorough research, lots of sources. How can the content added be improved? More subheadings and more expansion on the other parts of the article. Overall evaluation -It looks like you have done a lot of research for the section you decided to expand on for now. Everything you added has a source for it and you have included 4 new sources with your additions. -However I think you need a clearer direction for how you want to change the article moving forward. You have only expanded on one section so far and the information you did add seems to expand on a random aspect of Lesotho’s economy. I recommend adding more subheadings to the “Economic Progress” section that more clearly highlight which aspects of Lesotho’s economy you think is important and has shown the most improvement. -I think the information you included about diamond mines belongs to the next section titled “Natural Resources.” Erikbcervantes (talk) 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)