diff --git a/docs/2025/reviews/tldr-pages-review.md b/docs/2025/reviews/tldr-pages-review.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c793d47
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/2025/reviews/tldr-pages-review.md
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+# Technical documentation review 
+
+**Reviewed Documentation:** [tldr-pages](https://github.com/tldr-pages/tldr/tree/main) repository.
+
+## Reviewer information:
+- **Name**: Mariam Yusuff
+- **Date of Review**: Spet. 26, 20256/09/2025
+- **Review Level**: Intermediate
+
+## 1. Summary:
+*tldr-pages* is a community-maintained collection of short, example-based cheat-sheets for CLI commands. *tldr*  focuses on practical examples which help with learning. It is a compact complement to *man* pages. 
+
+*Man* pages are the original documentations for UNIX and UNIX-like commands. However, these pages are often dense with lots of technical jargons. 
+  
+
+The *tldr-pages* documentation explains:
+    - The purpose of the project.
+    - How contributors can add or improve pages.
+    - Style and formatting rules for writing code pages.
+    - Developer-specific guidelines such as linting and client-specification.
+
+
+
+## 2. Clarity and comprehensiveness:
+
+**Balance**  
+- The language is friendly and README.md provides useful links for beginners to check. 
+- CONTRIBUTING.md outlines the process of adding and editing pages.
+- The style guide explains the page format with good examples.
+- The documentation covers key areas including:
+    - The purpose of the project.
+    - Clear explanation of the pages and their purpose.
+    - How clients fetch pages.
+    - The contribution workflow: fork, clone, PR.
+- The code pages are easy to scan through and understand.  
+
+**Gaps**  
+- Some sections assume prior Git and GitHub knowledge, which may not be true in all cases. 
+- CONTRIBUTING.md has numerous hyperlinks. This can cause users to jump around.
+- CONTRIBUTING.md is too dense and contributors may not read the whole of it, which defeats its purpose. 
+- Some technical jargons such as “lint CI fails”, “autogenerated index” are not clearly explained.
+
+
+
+
+## 3. Accuracy and relevance:
+- Details such as the file structure and naming rules seem correct and align with the repository’s implementation.
+-  The repo follows best practices for open source contribution. For example, linking to GitHub help, PR templates.  
+
+**Caution**  
+- There should be periodic review to ensure installation examples are not outdated. 
+- The repo can align better with modern technical writing practices. 
+
+
+## 4. Structure and organization:
+- There is clear separation of documents: README, CONTRIBUTING, Style guide, Client specification.  
+
+**Gaps**
+- Fist time contributors may not know where to start as CONTRIBUTING.md is dense and has numerous links. 
+- There is no table of contents in CONTRIBUTING.md.
+- Some sequential guides are scattered across multiple files.
+
+
+
+
+## 5. Visual and design elements:
+- There are no diagrams or screenshots.
+
+- Consistent markdown formatting, but some sections are long walls of text.
+
+
+
+## 6. Suggestions for improvement:
+- A quickstart guide for beginners. Something like a "Make your first PR in 10 minutes" page. It can cover points such as:   
+    - Forking, cloning, and creating a branch.  
+    - Running `tldr-lint` locally to catch errors early.  
+    - Checklist to go through before creating a PR.
+
+- A table of contents in CONTRIBUTING.md.
+- A "Start here" section to guide newcomers. 
+- Diagrams showing the folder structure.
+- A troubleshooting section for common PR failures. 
+- The commands in the code pages should be indented. This allows for easier scanning and comprehension, especially for new users.
+
+
+
+## 7. Notable strengths:
+- The code pages are brief and straightforward. This helps with scanning. 
+- The friendly tone encourages contribution. 
+- The repo is well-structured which makes navigation once you understand the folder names.
+
+
+## 8. Overall assessment:
+Rating: 4/5
+The documentation is strong, but could be better for onboarding absolute beginners.
+It has a clear style guide and community-first tone. However, it lacks a single “follow-this-exactly” quickstart guide.
+