User:Joshuabm19/sandbox

Peer Review (Conducted by Cody Colbert)
Firstly, fantastic job so far on your article draft. Your draft has all the components of a strong Wikipedia article. It has strong sources, is well-organized, and you’ve done a good job in adding hyperlinks to your original content. Specifically, I think the paragraph about the UN Security Council’s statements about the Arc are both relevant and insightful. Although I have merely a surface-level understanding of your topic, I feel that the pre-existing section dedicated to “Events in an Arc” should be perhaps changed to read “Events in the Arc”. At any rate, the section only has five events and the list could likely be enlarged. Also, any new events listed and pre-existing events that do not have their own dedicated wikipedia page could probably use a succinct description. In your original section dedicated to the statements made by the UN, the phrases “terrorism” and “organized crime” can both be hyperlinked.

I think it would be reasonable to dedicate sections of the article to the perspectives that different nations have shown towards the Arc. You could add some quotes from high-ranking government members from different countries to show any contrast between the thoughts of different countries. This idea came about while I was reading through this page (full link below). Maybe it will have other valuable information whose sources you could find and use in your article.

Hope this helps,

Cody Colbert

Link: https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Arc_of_instability

Results of Peer Review:
As outlined above by my Cody, I've made an effort to introduce the following into my wikipedia artice:


 * Change "Events in an Arc" to "Events in the arc"
 * Hyperlink to definitions of "terrorism" and "organized crime"

Arc of Instability:
Changelog:


 * Added "although it has been received with negative criticism from South Pacific leaders" to the Introduction paragraph


 * Corrected spelling of Balkanisation to Balkanization
 * Added paragraph "Delegates of the United Nations Security Council stated...."
 * This includes adding hyperlinks to definitions of terrorism and organized crime
 * Added more information to "Definition and member states" including adding or removing certain countries from the list.

Drafting:
Introduction Paragraph:

The Arc of Instability is a proposed, interconnected chain of politically unstable nation states in the Asia-Pacific region. The term came into vogue in the late 1990s, proving especially popular with Australian politicians and journalists, although it has been received with negative criticism from South Pacific leaders. The Arc is also sometimes to referred to as Balkanization in a modern, Asia-Pacific context.

Delegates of the United Nations Security Council stated that without United Nations intervention, the Arc could make the entire area susceptible to becoming a terrorist hotspot, possibly so far as becoming a point of origin for international terrorist activity. Difficulty in slowing the Arcs progression stems from a variety of social and economic factors impeding the stabilization of member states, with use of military force being inadequate - unless there is an accompanying focus on protection of rights, promotion of peace, proliferation of new and ingenious terrorist groups, and the prevention of organized crime.

Definition and member states paragraph:

There is no official list of member states in the Arc, however it has traditionally been accepted to include South-East Asian and Oceanic nations such as Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Vanuatu, The Solomon Islands, East Timor, and Indonesia. The inclusion of West Papua is contested. Fiji was removed from the Pacific Islands Forum and does not receive a binding security agreement from Australia due to diplomatic tensions.

Role of the Australian Government paragraph

In 2000, the Australian Department of Defence, under the Howard Government, released a whitepaper stating the following:

"In the Southwest Pacific, as in Papua New Guinea, our aim is to maintain our position as the key strategic partner. Australian interests in a stable and secure Southwest Pacific are matched by significant responsibilities as leader and regional power. We would be very likely to provide substantial support in the unlikely event that any country in the Southwest Pacific faced substantial external aggression."

Following this, the whitepaper released by the Department in 2009 under the Rudd Government did not seem to indicate any departure from the previous strategy:

"After ensuring the defence of Australia from direct attack, the second priority task for the ADF is to contribute to stability and security in the South Pacific and East Timor. This involves conducting military operations, in coalition with others as required, including in relation to protecting our nationals, providing disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, and on occasion by way of stabilisation interventions as occurred in East Timor in 1999 and 2006, and in Solomon Islands in 2003"

New references (to be added to live article)

Possible Changes
- Create a better list of countries included within the Arc of Instability

- List more events that have happened within the region

Potential Bibliography Sources

 * 1) https://www.regionalsecurity.org.au/Resources/Files/Vol8No4Dobell.pdf
 * 2) https://www.un.org/press/en/2013/sc11004.doc.htm
 * 3) https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/160922_Sanderson_MilitancyArcInstabilitySahel_Web.pdf
 * 4) Robie, David. "Frontline Reporting, Ethos and Perception: Media Challenges in the South Pacific." Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 49, no. 2, 2008, pp. 213-227. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/236195897?accountid=12378, doi: http://dx.doi.org.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00371.x.
 * 5) Efremenko, Dmitry V. "New Russian Government's Foreign Policy Towards East Asia and the Pacific." The Journal of East Asian Affairs, vol. 26, no. 2, 2012, pp. 77-102. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/1347802010?accountid=12378.
 * 6) Siegl, Michael B. "Clarity and Culture in STABILITY OPERATIONS." Military Review, vol. 87, no. 6, 2007, pp. 99-107. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/225313212?accountid=12378.
 * 7) Ayson, Robert. "The 'Arc of Instability' and Australia's Strategic Policy." Australian Journal of International Affairs, vol. 61, no. 2, 2007, pp. 215-231. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/204225463?accountid=12378, doi: http://dx.doi.org.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/10.1080/10357710701358360.
 * 8) Cornish, Paul. "Prospects for Security and Stability: Afghanistan again." World Today, vol. 62, no. 8-9, 2006, pp. 13-15. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/60018293?accountid=12378.
 * 9) Haider, Ejaz. "Arc of Instability." World Today, vol. 59, no. 8, 2003, pp. 24-26. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/59949255?accountid=12378.
 * 10) Sun, Degang. Fighting with no Military Bases Abroad: Global Jihad Network and China's Anti-Terror Strategy. Research Inst European and American Studies, 2010. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/742956556?accountid=12378.
 * 11) Robie, David. "Frontline Reporting, Ethos and Perception: Media Challenges in the South Pacific." Asia Pacific Viewpoint, vol. 49, no. 2, 2008, pp. 213-227. ProQuest, https://search-proquest-com.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/docview/236195897?accountid=12378, doi: http://dx.doi.org.qe2a-proxy.mun.ca/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2008.00371.x.
 * 12) “Asia: Arc of Instability.” Energy Compass, 2006, p. 1.
 * 13) Duncan, Ron, and Satish Chand. “The Economics of the 'Arc of Instability'.” Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, vol. 16, no. 1, 2002, pp. 1–9.

'Politics of Canada' Article Evaluation Exercise:
The chosen article for the article evaluation portion of the project is the Politics of Canada, found via the methods suggested in the training modules.


 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Everything appears to be relevant, although the section on Governmental organization had a confusing layout
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Everything seems to be up to date. The "Political culture" section is missing a hyperlink to the New Democrat page
 * What else could be improved?
 * Making the article more user-friendly and easier to understand


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Possible bias in the line: "The Liberal Party, after dominating Canadian politics since the 1920s"
 * Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented?
 * Fringe parties may not necessarily get strong coverage but that is to be expected


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Links are all working and sources are valid
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Biases are not noted by sources seem to be relatively neutral.


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * Lots of very lively and well-constructed (if not heated) converstaions regarding bias in the article.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is part of WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Governments of Canada and WikiProject Politics, and it is rated as C-Class and Top Importance