User:Earthboundsunseeker/National Patriotic Front of Liberia/WadeBucket Peer Review

General info

 * Wade Buchheit (WadeBucket), reviewing Sabrina Churchwell (Earthboundsunseeker)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Earthboundsunseeker/National_Patriotic_Front_of_Liberia?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * National Patriotic Front of Liberia
 * National Patriotic Front of Liberia

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead Section:

Lead is miles better; much more detailed without being biased or too specific about the rest of the article. The topic is clearly important and relevant but not weighting any part of the conflict above any other part.

Structure:

Sections are organized logically. "Ethnic Divides" is a little bit of a dense section, so possibly consider splitting it chronologically or in some other manner; maybe by whoever the current leader was at the time?

Coverage:

Nothing seems unnecessary or off topic. Sections are weighted appropriately, multiple perspectives are applied, which I'm sure the increased number of sources helped with. A section that might be helpful or valuable to add is some of the effects of continous conflict and changing of the guard (as it were) on the people - civilian death toll or accidental casualties, results of favoritism towards ethnic Krahns or how that actually manifested, etc.

Neutrality:

Overall good. No skew, bias or conclusions but there are a couple phrases that may (?) raise red flags for readers or other editors if they presupposed bias (eg. "bloody assassination" of Tolbert, "disastrous failure" of Quiwonkpa's coup, "brutally tortured" Doe). While all of those may be true, it's worth considering whether the tradeoff of having such a strong adjective modifier is worth the risk of being seen as biased or exaggeratory. Just something to think about though! I also think you portray a lot of different perspectives without speaking for them, which is excellent.

Sources:

Sourcing is absolutely a strong point of the article. The number of sources is obviously quintupled, which is great on its own, but they also look to be very reliable and representative of the perspectives in the article. Also cited diversely and often which is fabulous

Overall:

I think that the sourcing is a particularly strong point, as is the structure and the perspectives you're able to convey. The lead section is concise and just detailed enough to be helpful without being overwhelming or unnecessary. As far as changes, I would maybe look at some of those word choices and see how necessary they are (obviously I don't know the topic as well; they very well might be), think about splitting up some of the longer sections for readability, and look at some effects of conflict. Great work!

Peer Review Response to Wade
Hey Wade!

Thanks so much for you feedback on my article. I definitely took your comments to heart and made some adjustments based off of your peer review. I went ahead and reworked the paragraph on ethnic divides, aiming to make it more chronological and less dense. I also added more detail in that section about President Doe and what happened to him after Charles Taylor took over, which I feel is relevant information. I also think your comment on adding a section about the results of favoritism towards ethnic Krahns and including some stats to support that would be a great idea. I think my article as it stands now mostly focuses on the ethnic divides and how they played out in terms of those who yielded the most power. I do not focus much on the civilian casualties and effects in that section, but I think it is important to include, as well. Thanks for bringing that to my attention! I also am reconsidering some of my phrasing that you pointed out in regards to the "bloody assassination" and "disastrous failure". I think you made an astute point in regards that it might risk being seen as exaggeratory, so I will likely revise those phrases. I am glad you appreciated my addition of sources, too. That's something I have been really aiming to increase, in addition to finding sources for claims made in the original article which lacked evidence. I still have to add a source from either a podcast or documentary though. Working on it! Thank you so much for all of your feedback, Wade. Good luck with your article!

Best,

Sabrina