User:Davidjsmith97/Bandung Conference/Davidjsmith97 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
The lead introductory sentence of this article is strong. It clearly and concisely explains what the subject of the article. The lead could better describe the article's major sections, it may be a little too concise in this regard. The final paragraph of the lead section regarding the 50th anniversary of the conference does not need to be included, it could be moved further down into another section and replaced with some more information on the significance of the Conference as part of the wider rise of decolonial thinking and Third World identity in the postwar period.

The content of the article is relevant and up-to-date. There is no particular content that does not belong. The article could be improved by adding a section dealing with the historical significance of the conference as playing an integral role in the emergence of the international diplomatic presence of Third World countries in the postwar period. This article does deal with an equity gap in the context of discussing postcolonialism and the emergence of decolonial thinking in world politics, more content could be added to contextualize this.

This article does a very good job of remaining neutral and unbiased. It would have been easy to overrepresent Western/Neocolonial viewpoints but that is not the case. It also does not vilify the involvement of the United States in the conference and is pragmatic in explaining how that involvement relates to the context of emerging diplomacy among newly decolonized states in the postwar period.

The sourcing and references from this article are diverse, reliable and of a high quality. The content of the article does accurately reflect the sources cited. There is a mix of historical, analytical and critical works referenced for the article.

The content is predominantly well written. It is clear and concise and there was only one grammatical error encountered in reading it. The writing is a little stilted, and could be improved stylistically with better transitional writing and a loose narrative structure indicating the contextual links between the sections (but that may be a matter of personal preference)

The use of images is adequate. They are relevant and properly captioned. There could be more visual elements added.

The content of this article could be greatly improved by adding a section on the significance of the conference's legacy in the emerging discipline of neocolonial and postcolonial international relations theory.