Talk:Africa–South Korea relations

Bailey's Peer Review
Hello, So far, I very much like your article. Particularly, the structure is great, and I can see where you are headed and how you plan to get there. The chronology of the article works, but I do suggest that if there are sections that light on information or a bit small that you either combine it with another or reorganizes the sections around it to make sure everything is succinct (i.e. Second South Korean Republic). I understand that you are still working on research, but I would love to know a bit more about African thought around the question of the Korean war and if that influenced their Cold War relations. The lead section would also be a great spot to include any other themes you find in your research about South Korean-African relations, as of now it is a bit empty. Your tone is neutral. My pair is also working on foreign relations in Africa and the Cold War, so I recommend being careful when talking about Cold War politics and ideologies because it can be hard to write without a Western bias, being in the US.

The portion that needs most improvement in my eyes is the First South Korean Republic section for clarity and completeness. Rather than accepting the UN's determination of North Korean aggression, I would simply say "Soon after the start of the Korean War" because it gives clarity to what you're trying to say. Also, at the end of the section you state that the First-World had a monopoly over South Korean relation but do not mention that much of this was due to most of Africa being colonized. It would be great if you could expand on any colonial relations if possible or reference imperialism's impact on these relations.

Overall though, the article is a great start and is a very interesting subject that has hardly been studied. I commend you all for writing a brand new article. Your sources are perfect for the subject, just make sure you fix whatever "date" problems need to be fixed. I look forward to seeing what the finished product is. Bayjohenderson (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Bayjohenderson

[Alicia's] peer review
Your topic is interesting and will be a great contribution to Wikipedia for readers to learn more about. Below is the feedback I have on your draft based on the peer review questions:

Lead: You did a great job of providing a concise and detailed Lead for the readers to understand what the article will be about. The Lead nicely summarizes and reflects what the major sections of the article will outline. There are few areas of improvement. The Lead should be clearly labeled. I would specify the specific regions in Africa you plan on focusing on. Lastly, I would add another sentence at the end to wrap up the main focal points the article will have.

Content: The article draft does a good job of providing relevant and current content about Africa-South Korean relations. There are a few recommendations I have. A suggestion for when describing South Korean and African relations regarding history is to sign post important dates more clearly. While the dates are included in the subheading, important dates within the timeframe should be sign posted in the corresponding paragraphs. Also, when introducing an acronym, I would encourage spelling the words out. For example, when stating the UNC in the First Republic of South Korea, UNC should be spelled out to say, “United Nations Command (UNC)”.

Tone and Balance: Overall, you did a good job of keeping a neutral tone. There was only one area to watch out for. I would be careful with the wording in the Lead section regarding the “perception” and the assertion made about decolonization. Consider providing specific outcomes to ground readers. Also, the last sentence under the First Republic of Korea regarding African states not engaging in foreign relations is a bit unclear. Consider specifying the reasons for this outcome more in detail as you continue to work on your draft.

Sources: You did a good job of providing reliable and current secondary sources. The article content accurately reflects what is stated in the sources that were cited. The examples you provided from the cited articles and websites were thorough. One source to reconsider would be the United States Forces Korea because the specific page cited seems a bit biased. My recommendation would be to find another source that can provide a neutral tone to best support your article.

Organization: The article draft is clear and well-written throughout. The current subheadings provide a helpful outline for readers to clearly visualize the article’s main subjects.

Overall feedback: What the article draft did well was providing engaging subsections, a clear structure, and clarity throughout. I was impressed by the types of subtopics you plan on researching, especially the contemporary section. Connecting the historical context to contemporary times is very important and will further engage readers. I am looking forward to learning more about the historical and contemporary connections. Some areas to improve are keeping a neutral tone and to specify in the Lead which African regions/countries you will be discussing to have a more narrowed focus. Fisheralicia0 (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)