Talk:Truth and Reconciliation in Cambodia

[Untitled]
Certainly off to an excellent start. There are NPOV (neutral point of view) issues that are going to be a challenge. Your opinions will come through in selection of coverage but try to make them invisible to the casual reader to achieve NPOV. Title may be wordy for a Wikipedia article - how about Truth and Reconciliation in Cambodia? (mirrors existing Truth Reconciliation in Colombia). Dwebsterbu (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Overall: Awesome article! Like Marie said, maybe look at its organization to make it a little bit clearer. Try and find ways of presenting the sources in a more neutral tone! PS YOU ROCK Introduction: A good summarization of the concept of truth and reconciliation in Cambodia. It'd be useful to add links to other wikipedia pages (ex. Khmer Rouge, Cambodian genocide) to further contextualize it for readers who have never heard of the topic before! Background: Good summarization of Khmer Rouge, some issues with neutral tone Tribunals: Maybe change the opening sentence of this section to better introduce the idea of the E.C.C.C.'s and then contextualize the court's creation with the timeline of the final Khmer Rouge leaders surrendering International community: What was the role of the international community throughout the latter 20th century as former Khmer Rouge leaders held onto power? How did the international community react during the rule of the Khmer Rouge and what was the reception to the genocide? Resistance: I agree with Marie's comments to include some more info on what that resistance looked like Reception: Some neutrality phrasing again ("the tribunals are problematic because...," "it sends the wrong message to the Cambodian public...") Truth and Reconciliation: I agree with what Marie said and would even include the section on reception, maybe Truth and Reconciliation as a whole and then dividing it into the subjects in relation to the process Future of the process: The last two sentences allude to a specific side being taken again (K8macbeth (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC))

comments on full draft
Very useful comments from peer reviewers. In-text references (Susan Dicklitch 516 etc) need to be changed to footnotes, ideally using the "cite" function

The research here is impressive, but the write-up reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia entry. There are NPOV (neutral point of view) issues throughout. Use of the passive voice accentuate this challenge and invites "by who? tags." One way to get around the NPOV issue is to switch to active voice - eg: "Scholars including Dicklitch have argued...." and then the citation.

Resistance and reception might be merged into a single section on debates about a truth process. Ditto (as peer reviews suggest) on criticism and TRC sections. In general, the closer it looks to an article on Truth and Reconciliation in Cambodia, and the less like an essay, the better.

In sum, this is good research and has some excellent sections - suggestions aim at improvement.

Before or preferably after some fixes to in-text referencing, you could go ahead and move your article to the Wikipedia mainspace. Tips on doing this appear in the “Moving Out of Your Sandbox” handout, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Classroom_handout_-_moving_out_of_your_sandbox.pdf You may also wish to consult, before the final deadline at the end of next week, the handout on “Polishing Your Article” at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polishing_your_articles.pdf Dwebsterbu (talk) 00:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)