Talk:Wilson Katiyo

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 5 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stacy.johnson515. Peer reviewers: Aumgirl2024, Mbelden1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

by User: Thee.Outkast

• Lead

The lead could summarize more about him and what he did during his career in writing. For example, give a brief overall view of what he is known for and or his best work.

• Sourcing

I see you do not have a lot of sources which isn't your fault because these African writers are overlooked but the ones you have are reliable.

• Structure

Your structure is very good and in the order, it should be.

• Language

The language is very well written and I like how you get straight to the point with every topic you discuss. Thee.outkast (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

by User: Nickywithdablicky

• Lead

The lead is fairly short. I recommend adding a few details to create a concise summary of the rest of the article.

• Sourcing

I think for this size article, you could use a few more articles. Take a closer look around AUM articles and Jstor. The sources you do have are reliable.

• Structure

The structure is pretty good, however, I suggest taking out the death and listing that under biography because it does need a new section.

• Language

The language is clear and understandable. I like that you were not repetitive in your writing.--Nickywithdablicky (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

by User: Aumgirl2024

• Lead
• The lead is short and tells about the topic. Maybe you could add more like his major works and awards he won.
• Sourcing
• The sources are good and reliable. The second source is a reliable, peer-reviewed academic journal. The last source is from the World Literature Today which is a reliable magazine published at the University of Oklahoma, Norman.
• Structure
• I think that the structure is good. The article is neatly organized and easy to read.
• Language
• I think that the language is good. Overall, I think your article is good. I'm sure it will get better and better as you expand it.

Aumgirl2024 (talk) 06:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead

• The lead is very formal and tells me what your article will be talking about.

Content

• The content is relevant and is something that people need to learn about.
• There could be some stuff added but it's hard to find sources that backup your information so your content is very good.

Tone

• The content you had was neutral.
• You didn't have any bias points which is good.
• You article was formal and neutral and didn't favor or attempt to favor anyone or any point .

Content

• Your sources are very reliable and give a lot information to back up your points made in your article.

Organization

• Your organization is well formatted in your article.

Sourcing

• You have two reliable sources to make your article notable for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subzero10 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

1. Lead:

The lead was a bit short. I feel like it could contain a little more information.

2. Sourcing: There aren't very many sources you have, but the ones you do have a credible and reliable.

3. Structure: The structure of your article is clean and compact. It makes it easy to follow along in the material.

4. Language: The language you used is great. Everything gets straight to the point and readers aren't stuck reading an article for too long.

Overall, I believe your article has great potential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbelden1 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)