User:Arkpear12/Sande society/KeeganmQuack Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Arkpear12

Link to draft you're reviewing


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

Response
Thanks Michael for the feedback! It is incredibly helpful and thorough! Some of the suggestions (such as your suggestion to rename the bonding section) are in reference to the original Wikipedia article. I am still considdeering whether or not I want to change any of the structure or details of the original article. My intent with my Wikipedia page is to bolster the substance of the article to make it particularly relevant for NGO workers in the region, as I've met multiple people who have been forcibly harmed by the society. I like the idea of paraphrasing quotes, even within the original article. I will definitely take your organization, clarity, and references comments into account and make all the suggested changes. Again, however, some of these comments are about the clarity of the original article, which I'm more or less resistant to over editing as my intent is to bolster the page, not re write it. I agree the original article wasn't written at the quality of say, a Williams student, but I'm not sure that I take issue with the information presentation as it's neutral in tone and more or less easy to understand. I will make sure that I use the same terms/ ensure consistency between my descriptions of the Sande and the original piece. Thank you again for your help!!

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Alex! - Here are some of my suggestions. Overall, the information you include is fascinating and pertinent! All of your sources are also excellent. Below I have written my suggestions for the article - feel free to take or leave what you want. Mainly, I would suggest focusing on the flow of the article and how its readability can improve for the casual web surfer.

Content

- maybe it would be possible to rename the section titles for the Wikipedia page to make them more concise / relevant. I am not sure if a "bonding" section is necessary for instance. Maybe renaming "Alternating roles of the Sande and Poro societies" to "relationship between _____ societies" ?

- the original article includes many quotes from scholarly sources that might be better simply paraphrased

- define "these cultural apparatuses"

- it could help to add more specific information about the geographic location of Sande societies in Liberia? at one point, it is mentioned that Sande societies have influence over 2/3rds of the Liberation population.

- "zoes used theire sway in rural communities to ensure that it was taken off the bill" - how did they go about doing so? Were officials from rural constituencies more inclined to take that part of the bill off?

Organization

- some information contradicts information from the original article. Though you say "zoes" perform the procedure, the paragraph before explains that Maios perform the procedure. It might help the article's readability to delete or consolidate some of the original article's information

- perhaps a restructure could aid understanding in certain parts of the article. Making things flow chronologically might improve readability. For example in the "Sequestration and female circumcision" section, your discussion of zoes might do better after you talk about the "bush period" (or maybe a section dedicated to zoes would also help)

- some stand-alone paragraphs do not need to be isolated. Most Paragraphs that are a single sentence could be combined with previous or ensuing paragraphs

- some sentences from the previous version of the article do not make sense - maybe edit these a little bit? for example the image caption - "Sande society initiates, Sierra Leone. To either side of the girls stand masked women wearing "devil masks", who are in charge of the initiation." is a pretty confusing sentence

- sometimes the transition between the original content and your additions needs to be cleaned up a little bit. For example "and open conversation around it could be interpreted as questioning the legitimacy of Sande and its moral teachings.  Much of the learning..." is a transition that could be improved

- section about zoes in political influence is super fascinating! But, it does seem to interrupt the flow as it is sandwiched by paragraphs which speak more directly of political influence

- discussions of FGM almost need their own sub-section within the political influence section, it seems separate from the other subjects discussed

- i am not sure if you need the summary found at the beginning of the "Criticisms of Sande Society" section

- overall there are a few spelling errors that need to be fixed "theire" "midwiving" "poltical"

Tone and Balance:

- some content from the previous version of the article needs more specificity - "But at least one anthropologist has suggested that the girls "learn little more than they already knew before they entered the bush ... or than they would learn at that stage of their lives if they did not become secret society members." - who is this anthropologist? are there others?

- "As a result of this bonding process, women continue to participate in Sande society throughout their lives and will carry down the traditions to their daughters." - it seems as though there are many possible reasons for which women stay in the Sande society. "As a result" creates a decisive conclusion.

- "Due to the political influence zoes hold on over two-thirds of the Liberian population, no law actually threatening the power of Sande can be approved at a national level." - this sentence seems to draw its own conclusions

- the section title "Violence against Liberian activists and journalists" seems to suggest more physical violence than what is mentioned in the body of the section

Sources + References

- it appears that many of your sources are cited multiple times to different reference points. For example you cited the "Birds of the same feather" as source 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. If you re-use sources when creating citations, it will consolidate all of these to "source 1"

- "McCormack" "another source" "at least one anthropologist" - these sources need to be properly explained if they are referenced in the article

- many of your paragraphs are followed by a group of citations - do any of the sentences in the paragraph apply to only one of the citations? If so, that citation should probably follow that specific sentence

- source 26 doesn't have an attributed author - would it be possible to find another similar source with the same information? If not, it looks like a well-written local article and should work