This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lxy80
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lxy80/Christine Obbo
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? no
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise
Personal life was not included in the lead. The lead included specifics that are not discussed in the rest of the article. However, I do believe that is important as it discusses Obbo's credentials. Other than that, the lead was good.
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
Content was good as it was relevant and up-to-date. However, this article seems to be short; so if there is additional information, you should include it.
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 were good! There did not seem to be any bias.
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
The sources seem to work and they reflect the article well. I'm a little weary of the third source (the Google Scholar) as it seems to be too vague.
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
The organization is good and I did not seem to find any grammatical or spelling errors.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
- Are images well-captioned? NA
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? nA
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA
There are no images. If you can find one, it may help the reader engage better with the article.
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? the list of sources are good
- 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? yes
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes
I think you could add more article links so that it is more discoverable. Also, you may want to add more sources and information to solidify the article.
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? the lead does well to add credibility to Obbo and the career content is good.
- How can the content added be improved? You should add more information on Obbo in general.
The information currently on the article is good, however, I do think that you need to add more information and link it to how Obbo was involved with HIV/AIDS. Other than that, good job!
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Lxy80
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lxy80/Christine Obbo
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? no
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? yes
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise
Personal life was not included in the lead. The lead included specifics that are not discussed in the rest of the article. However, I do believe that is important as it discusses Obbo's credentials. Other than that, the lead was good.
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
Content was good as it was relevant and up-to-date. However, this article seems to be short; so if there is additional information, you should include it.
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 were good! There did not seem to be any bias.
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
The sources seem to work and they reflect the article well. I'm a little weary of the third source (the Google Scholar) as it seems to be too vague.
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
The organization is good and I did not seem to find any grammatical or spelling errors.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? no
- Are images well-captioned? NA
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? nA
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? NA
There are no images. If you can find one, it may help the reader engage better with the article.
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? the list of sources are good
- 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? yes
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes
I think you could add more article links so that it is more discoverable. Also, you may want to add more sources and information to solidify the article.
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? the lead does well to add credibility to Obbo and the career content is good.
- How can the content added be improved? You should add more information on Obbo in general.
The information currently on the article is good, however, I do think that you need to add more information and link it to how Obbo was involved with HIV/AIDS. Other than that, good job!