User:AngusLi6/Yamoussoukro Decision/PatrickTheveny Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

AngusLi6


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AngusLi6/Yamoussoukro_Decision?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Yamoussoukro Decision

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead section does not have a header, but that the only real flaw I notice there. It is a little lengthy 9 (if what I'm reading is intended to be the lead), but it is informative and not overly detailed. It seems as if you're doing a full overhaul of the lead section, as well as the entirety of this wikipedia page, but you've done a good job of integrating the already useful information from the original lead, while integrating your new information pertaining to the topic and rectifying some of the language of the initial paragraph (i.e, you write 44 countries signed rather than endorsed). It seems as if the information added to the lead from the initial article is mostly minor edits, but an extra reference has been added which is always good.

In terms of content that has been added to the article, major edits have certainly been made. The initial article you chose to edit seem to just be a skeleton frame for the topic, and the massive overhaul you've made seemed necessary. What is included now in this article seems to be covering all of the bases pertaining to this act. Providing background motives for the act, contents of the act, and how the act is to be implemented are all necessary, and well written. Everything is informative, and there is no shortage of references to back to the information you're providing. You have included references from over 20 years ago (only one), but a majority of the sources included are from the past 5-10 years, which checks off that aspect of the content section. The topic is relatively recent news, so it is not surprising that everything you have sourced is recent. The treaty content and signing section is nice and informative, and seems to be as expansive as it can be for a section pertaining to an individual act. The article does address an equity gap, as we've learned through class, Africa as a continent suffers from a lack of media/literary coverage, and writing a piece on an act that includes 44 countries within the continent certainly check off this aspect. Also the initial article is indicative of lack of coverage.

As far as Tone and Balance, I don't think you run into any major issues. The Background section is written in a manner that comes off a little essay-ish, which is something to be wary of (i.e, Aviation has long been understood to be uniquely.... etc.), but you have references to back up this claim so I'm not sure there's a real issue there. There does not seem to be an y bias present in the work you've done, as the article strikes a nice balance between, the act itself, motives for coming to be and the eventual implementation of it. The aren't any subjective takes i've noticed, so I think you're in the clear as far as tone and balance.

The sections have been added in a section that makes sense to me, as the new additions to the lead section, which further explains the treaty, then subsequent contextualization and an evaluation of the treaty then follows. Similar to the other wikipedia page I peer reviewed, this topic, is pretty niche so it seems like you're covering a lot of bases as far as vital knowledge concerning the topic.

After visiting multiple sources, and checking the publishing dates of them everything seems fine in that department. Information seems to be well translated from the sources to the wiki page, and nothing stands out as untrustworthy or anything like that.

There is no media or pictures included, which could be something you add as you progress past the draft process. That being said the inclusion of the countries, and their accompanying flags, was a nice touch to the wiki page.

(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)