User talk:SachiyoOuchi/Agroecology in West Africa/Kristinatseng 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 SachiyoOuchi (provide username) User:SachiyoOuchi/Agroecology in West Africa Lead Guiding questions:

'''==== Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? ====''' yes 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? no Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? no, it's just right 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? no, but for the ROPPA part if it includes a list of countries, that might be helpful 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, good balance 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, i think earliest is 2009, so all current Check a few links. Do they work? yes, works fine 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? not as far as I can tell 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

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? yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? In the process, but so far sources seem legitimate and representative of 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? no Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes 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? In the couple of paragraphs written, I could understand what it was. How can the content added be improved? maybe define the term-- agroecology a bit more. Also for the organizations, writing out the full name in the heading would be helpful. Overall evaluation I think Sachiyo is off to a good start. The sections seem to be relevant and inclusive of different subjects on the topic.

Kristinatseng (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)