User talk:JamesAGunn
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/African_Politics_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, JamesAGunn, 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
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)
Margaret Garry's Peer Review
[edit]General info
Whose work are you reviewing? JamesAGunn
Link to draft you're reviewing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JamesAGunn/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?
Lead evaluation
The lead does seem to reflect the new content added. The introductory sentence could be a bit more tailored to the article's content. For example: "Botswana's healthcare system has seen an increase in quality and coverage largely due to increased infrastructure expenditures and accessibility efforts." I do think that the lead addresses the section content. The lead does not include information that is not present in the article. The lead is well written but could be slightly less wordy. For example: "The infant mortality and maternal mortality ratios have been on a steady decline as a result of the improvements that have been made" could be changed to: "As a result of these improvements, infant and maternal mortality rates have faced a steady decline."
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 content added is relevant to the topic. The user has done a great job adding up to date content, even adding a new section to address the Corona Virus. All of the content seems to belong in the article, but I am a little confused by the "Batswana" reference multiple times throughout the article. I looked it up and saw that it is a reference to an ethnic group living in Botswana. I would definitely either link this to the article or mention it because I was a bit confused.
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 content added is neutral overall. I would just make one change and remove the word "battling" from the lead and change it to something more tone-neutral. There aren't any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position. I do not see any viewpoints that seem overrepresented or underrepresented. The content added does not appear to attempt to persuade the reader.
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 user has done an excellent job with sourcing, and all sources appear reliable. The sources are thorough, and I'm sure the user will add more as they continue to edit and add to the draft. The sources are all current, and the links work.
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
The content is well written in the sections, as I mentioned earlier I would make the lead slightly more concise but that is my only suggestion regarding conciseness. I did not see any grammar or spelling errors. The content added is well organized and reflects the major points of the topic.
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
I did not see any images or media in the draft.
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
The draft I'm reviewing is not a new article.
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
The content added has certainly improved the overall quality of the article. The new content seems to better encompass the topic being addressed. The content could be improved potentially by combining the "Expenditure on Health" and "Staffing" sections as they seem closely related. I would also potentially add some commentary on vulnerable populations or obstacles to healthcare access, but these are just suggestions. The user did a great job with content coverage.
MargaretGarry (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Margaret Garry