User:Arkpear12/Sande society/Jamesrjb7 Peer Review

General info
==
 * Whose work are you reviewing?   Arkpear12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Arkpear12/Sande_society?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Sande society ==

Response
James, thank you so much for this feedback!! It's super thorough an helpful! It's very clear that I need to work on creating a more neutral tone, especially in the "Critcism" section. It's also clear that I need to work on adding additional soruces in some places, and removing some of my blacok quotes. I will take all of this feedback when I'm revising. Thank you!

Evaluate the drafted changes
==
 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * Edits were not made to the lead, but it's concise and neutral enough that I don't think expansion is necessary.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * See above.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * See above.


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * The sections are very well organized, and the article flows very well.


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * I wouldn't say anything is off-topic, though the one-sentence addition to the bonding section seems unnecessary in the context of the whole article and how linear the narrative is from one section to the next. Participation seems obvious, so I'm not sure it needs to be stated in such a way, though the sourcing is excellent. Is there a way you could integrate the source with the previous material to create a more cohesive bonding section?
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * While I'm not familiar with much published literature on Sande culture, it seems like this article is incredibly well sourced, maintaining an unbiased description of culture and traditions, particularly the initiation ritual.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * In the journalist violence section, the language used does sound editorial/opinion-oriented. Claims are presented that might be true on the ground, but the wording of the article seems to accept these as facts without providing clear examples. Specifically: Across Liberia, conversations around FGM are almost taboo, and those who publicly speak out against Sande society are often putting themselves in danger."
 * Are there specific laws that ban literal conversation around FGM? What is the meaning of "almost taboo"? Who are "Those who publicly speak out" beyond the one journalist that are "often" endangered? The language here is very ambiguous, which leads me (at least personally) to fill in the blanks with my own personal biases regarding freedom of the press and FGM. Generalizations in such an objective style need more specific written examples, and more than the two sources cited in this section.
 * Equality Now’s Uwizeye describes how “campaigners have received death threats and some have even had their houses burnt down because of their work. Even journalists have been threatened and some have actually stopped talking on FGM. Some have gone into hiding.”  This quote is (probably) fine to use, but it should be put in context that doesn't sound like an evidence introduction from a poli sci paper. As far as we know, this is someone's opinion, an unsubstantiated claim they're making. Sweeping generalizations, no matter how correct they might be, should be laid out to the reader in citations and objective facts, so that we're informed of a situation, not convinced about it.
 * In the criticisms section, the language used and examples cited again sound like they could be in a paper on the horrific practices of FGM and why its bad. See: The reasons for this are multifaceted," and the use of qualifiers in "often can’t afford to pay both, and when ‘bush’ school is held during the school year, many girls have to pull out of classes for several weeks and frequently don’t return. Mothers describe how the costs of initiation, such as feeding, transportation, mediation, and other fees, make it impossible for them to send their girls to school as well." This language, like "often," "several," "frequently," "mothers describe" are only objective if one reads the source material behind these claims. Otherwise they exist as unsubstantiated assertions in an article treated as objective fact. No matter how morally right the position might be, this article can only report on Sande society's documented effects on women's rights, not the narrative created as a result of those facts.


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * Yes. The article comes across as biased against specific cultural practices of the Sande people, which (although I agree with you) shouldn't really be the case? The entire political and economic sway section reads like an argumentative essay trying to convince the reader that Sande society is so obviously negatively impacting women in Liberia, which is a position that the reader, for whatever reason, might not agree with. (As mentioned in previous sections) removing ambiguous qualifiers that are used in argumentative writing to stress points will go a long way to creating a more neutral tone. I'll outline some specific examples in the first section:
 * Sande society plays a significant political, social, educational, and economic role in Liberia. The practices of Sande, including its initiation rituals, have been documented since the XVIIth Century. National data suggests the ubiquitous nature of Sande societies in Liberia, as FGM is still practiced by 13 of the 16 tribes, by both Muslim and Christian communities, and by about 70% of women in the North-Central and North-Western regions.
 * This reads like an essay claim and evidence introduction. The point about historical documentation and contemporary practice is well taken, but it doesn't read objectively.
 * Watch out for words like "significant" and "suggests."
 * As a result of Sande society’s incredible influence over many rural communities in Liberia, being initiated into the society is necessary to attain influence and power on a local level. Families who choose to opt out of the Sande or Poro societies in areas where it’s practiced are treated as social outcasts and moral sinners, and are not able to take part in any village decision-making.  
 * I don't read the assertion of "incredible" (read: literally unbelievable) as unbiased. Same with "necessary," and the claim that they're treated as outcasts and sinners. That might be true, and the sourcing is very thorough so I believe you that this is true, but stating this claim as a fact is different from stating objective facts. You provide the facts, we as the readers will draw conclusions based on those facts.
 * Zoes, in particular, reap large economic benefits from their leadership role in Sande society. The ‘bush’ schools charge large fees and zoes have decreased their length in order to increase turnover.
 * This is good! Maybe consider taking out "in particular." What kind of economic benefits do they reap? Is there monetary data on this? What is a "large fee"? How much have zoes decreased their length? Why is turnover important to them?
 * Due to these high costs, parents frequently have to choose between sending their children to ‘bush’ school or village schools. Additionally, if parents fail to pay the zoes’ fees, their children may not be permitted to return from ‘bush’ school. Because zoes control the labor and services to girls in the village, they also extract fees for their spiritual support or assistance during pregnancy and childbirth. Being a zoe has always come with great respect and economic reward. During the slave trade, for example, zoes used ‘bush’ schools as a way of obtaining women to sell to Europeans, and kept the profits for themselves.  
 * Again, this reads like an argumentative essay. I get that its probably very difficult to make cultural, qualitative data read in an unbiased manner, but it reads as though you're trying to convince the reader. Particularly the if/then statement, and the continued use of qualifiers and hypotheticals (see: "Frequently, "may not be," "has always come.")
 * Throughout Liberia, Sande and Poro societies hold unique political influence, and politicians themselves are often deeply entwined in the societies.
 * See previous note on qualifiers used to inject ambiguity to prove a point. Here: "often deeply entwined." Show, don't tell.
 * I'm going to skip around here, but I think this paragraph is another example: Sande rule is so widely respected in Liberia that local law enforcement and politicians often have to adhere to traditional laws before the official justice system if the zoes get involved. When it comes to legal issues, such as forceful initiations taking place, law enforcement tends to yield to the will of the zoes and the victims have limited methods in which to seek justice. According to a Liberian lawyer, "there is nothing the law can do" when a customary law such as FGM has been violated.”
 * Even in the first sentence, a shift in sentence structure would really change how I personally read this. Cutting ambiguous pieces like "so widely respected," "often," and "if" and reworking to include examples of law enforcement being hampered would go a long way to changing the tone.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * See previous notes on neutrality and tone of the article. Also of note here is the repeated use of the FGM abbreviation. Given that the term is central to the entirety of the article, I think the full phrase should be written out each time and not abbreviated. It also makes the article easier to read and more accessible.
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * See previous notes.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * This is very well sourced! I think that some of the material sourced and then extensively block quoted again makes this article feel way more like an argumentative essay than a synthesis of facts (See the Veronica Fuest quote, the JDY Peel quote). They're also just *really* long. I'd recommend also reworking the section of the article that includes the Carol MacCormack quote to incorporate it into the text instead of just letting it stand as a block quote.
 * I really like the section after that gives specific dates and policy applications, and then explains why those policies have failed (this is also very well sourced). I think the "criticisms" section could benefit from additional sourcing (see sentences attributed w/ one source), as well as a rework of the tone. ==