User:Earthboundsunseeker/National Patriotic Front of Liberia/WadeBucket Peer Review

Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

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?
Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

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?
Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

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?

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
Are the sources current?
Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
Check a few links. Do they 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?

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?

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is for 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?

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?

Examples of good feedback

A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved.

Peer review of "Homemaking"
Peer review of this article about a famous painting

Additional Resources

Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Wade Buchheit (WadeBucket), reviewing Sabrina Churchwell (Earthboundsunseeker)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Earthboundsunseeker/National_Patriotic_Front_of_Liberia?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
National Patriotic Front of Liberia

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead Section:

Lead is miles better; much more detailed without being biased or too specific about the rest of the article. The topic is clearly important and relevant but not weighting any part of the conflict above any other part.

Structure:

Sections are organized logically. "Ethnic Divides" is a little bit of a dense section, so possibly consider splitting it chronologically or in some other manner; maybe by whoever the current leader was at the time?

Coverage:

Nothing seems unnecessary or off topic. Sections are weighted appropriately, multiple perspectives are applied, which I'm sure the increased number of sources helped with. A section that might be helpful or valuable to add is some of the effects of continous conflict and changing of the guard (as it were) on the people - civilian death toll or accidental casualties, results of favoritism towards ethnic Krahns or how that actually manifested, etc.

Neutrality:

Overall good. No skew, bias or conclusions but there are a couple phrases that may (?) raise red flags for readers or other editors if they presupposed bias (eg. "bloody assassination" of Tolbert, "disastrous failure" of Quiwonkpa's coup, "brutally tortured" Doe). While all of those may be true, it's worth considering whether the tradeoff of having such a strong adjective modifier is worth the risk of being seen as biased or exaggeratory. Just something to think about though! I also think you portray a lot of different perspectives without speaking for them, which is excellent.

Sources:

Sourcing is absolutely a strong point of the article. The number of sources is obviously quintupled, which is great on its own, but they also look to be very reliable and representative of the perspectives in the article. Also cited diversely and often which is fabulous

Overall:

I think that the sourcing is a particularly strong point, as is the structure and the perspectives you're able to convey. The lead section is concise and just detailed enough to be helpful without being overwhelming or unnecessary. As far as changes, I would maybe look at some of those word choices and see how necessary they are (obviously I don't know the topic as well; they very well might be), think about splitting up some of the longer sections for readability, and look at some effects of conflict. Great work!

Peer Review Response to Wade

Hey Wade!

Thanks so much for you feedback on my article. I definitely took your comments to heart and made some adjustments based off of your peer review. I went ahead and reworked the paragraph on ethnic divides, aiming to make it more chronological and less dense. I also added more detail in that section about President Doe and what happened to him after Charles Taylor took over, which I feel is relevant information. I also think your comment on adding a section about the results of favoritism towards ethnic Krahns and including some stats to support that would be a great idea. I think my article as it stands now mostly focuses on the ethnic divides and how they played out in terms of those who yielded the most power. I do not focus much on the civilian casualties and effects in that section, but I think it is important to include, as well. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! I also am reconsidering some of my phrasing that you pointed out in regards to the "bloody assassination" and "disastrous failure". I think you made an astute point in regards that it might risk being seen as exaggeratory, so I will likely revise those phrases. I am glad you appreciated my addition of sources, too. That's something I have been really aiming to increase, in addition to finding sources for claims made in the original article which lacked evidence. I still have to add a source from either a podcast or documentary though. Working on it! Thank you so much for all of your feedback, Wade. Good luck with your article!

Best,

Sabrina