User:AngusLi6/Yamoussoukro Decision/Shemley1823 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 has been greatly expanded with more necessary detail added. The first sentence mentions some of the subsections that are in the treaty content and signing section, but I might mention safety in the lead as well. Unrelated to content, but there's an extra space between all and it in "all it's signatories." Overall, this is a really good lead and you added a lot of new links. I'm not sure if this is beyond the scope of the article, but as someone reading it for the first time, I have no idea what first through fifth freedoms of the air are or mean. I know you link to it, and I don't think this is by any means necessary, but it might be useful to give a quick overview of what this means in the later section that talks about freedoms of the air. The content you added is outstanding as you added so much to a bare article, with tons of links and connections to other articles. The level of added content is very impressive. It definitely addresses equity gaps, as African politics are not written about much in general. I'm especially impressed with the section with the member states, I'm not sure how you were able to do that formatting, but I'd like to see how you did that as I find it adds a lot to the article. Although, is there a link you can add to the states that are suspended from the AU? The content is neutral and does not seem to be biased or arguing for a specific perspective. I'm wondering however if the first sentence of your background section might have a biased tone. I do not think it needs to be deleted per se, however I do think the article would still flow without it. As far as references, you went from a page that had four to a page with ten which is great. For some reason, there are 10 sources in your references list but 11 source citations, I'm not sure why that is. All the sources look reliable, thorough, and current. You have both African and international perspectives. You also have both original documents and commentary and opinions. The links work. I'm wondering, however, if the sources skew towards a negative analysis of aviation in Africa as well as of the decision and the events since then. I can't tell for sure because I haven't read every source in its entirety, but from what I can tell in regards to most of the titles, there seems to be a lot of criticism. It's okay if there aren't, but are there sources that paint the topic in a positive light? Even though your content does not take a side, I wonder if there are more sources that are less negative. The organization is great, and I like how you have some additional outlined subtopics. The treaty content and signing, implementation, and reaction sections are a great breakdown of the topic. The media you have on the right of the article with the map and the little box of description is really cool and adds a lot to the article in my opinion (also how did you do that?) The quality and quantity of this article has been greatly improved in almost every way possible. The strengths of the content added is mainly that there barely was any content and that you were able to fully flesh out the topic. Overall, this is a great project.