User:Kchiuc/Robert Sobukwe/Yonakrug Peer Review

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

Yes, there is far more information in the new lead that helps set up the details added. The new lead also has a more neutral tone.


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

The introductory sentence (Robert Mangaliso Sobukwe (5 December 1924 – 27 February 1978) was a prominent South African anti-apartheid revolutionary and founding member of the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC), serving as the first president of the organization.) is the same as the original article. I do think this is an appropriate opening sentence especially because this article is about this specific figure.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes, I believe it does. It is mostly a summary of Subukwe’s life and the lead does reflect that. I do feel like there could be one more sentence about the Pan Africanist movement. That is the only thing that feels like it could be addressed more.


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

It is quite concise, I do feel like it could use a little more detail, but I also understand that when writing about a person it is easier to narrow down the necessary information.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?

First off, I really like how you separated the timeline of his life into sections because it makes the information easier to read. The content added in the early years section is also helpful. I do think it would be ideal to have a bit more information on his background in college because that often shapes a lot of what happens later in life. You mention “his study of Native Administration” and I think it might be beneficial to include another sentence about it here even though you link to another article because it is still a bit unclear. The mainstream politics section is great and is split up very logically, it does not seem like much content was added from the original. Both the illness and death and legacy sections have also been filled out nicely.


 * Is the content added up-to-date?

Based on the sources, they seem to be.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Going off the information provided in the lead, I don’t think there is any content missing. On the contrary I think that the content from the original article that was missing has now been filled in.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Yes, absolutely. Robert Subukwe is definitely historically underrepresented despite his many successes and failures as politician and revolutionary.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?

Yes, and I think the content from the previous article has been made more neutral. For example this sentence from the lead of the original draft, “During his lifetime, Sobukwe was considered to be so dangerous by the National Party government that its parliament enacted the "Sobukwe clause", a statute which on its face seemed to grant broadly applicable powers, but was specifically intended to authorize the arbitrary extension of Sobukwe's imprisonment,” reflects a pretty obviously biased tone and you have improved that to include the same information but without judgment to let the reader form their own opinion.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No there are not.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

I think that this point could be fleshed out some more: “Sobukwe also argued that whites should be excluded from the ANC as it was impossible to have a relationship between blacks and whites until further progress had been made. He argued that a reliance on whites would disempower the realization that many of these Africans had, that they had the power to overtake a society that had been taken from them.” I’d like to have more clarity on what that progress means.


 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

It does not.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes.


 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)

Yes.


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?

You have scholarly sources, news sites, a documentary and journal articles so, yes.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

For the most part, yes.


 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)

I really do think you have a comprehensive list of sources here. The only source that seems a bit sketchy is the News24 source but I don’t think you will find that information anywhere else.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Yes, it is very well written and easy to follow. Especially with the way you split up sections.


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No.


 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Absolutely.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

The article is more comprehensive overall it also is organized far better.


 * What are the strengths of the content added?

There are a few strengths. The first is the expansion of the early life section. The information about his parents is helpful in understanding his background. The section on PAC is also highly detailed and provides us clear information on what Subukwe stood for and why his sentence to prison was unfair. Overall, you do a great job of presenting the reader with the facts on Sobukwe so they can form their own opinions rather than the original article which immediately calls him dangerous from the first paragraph.


 * How can the content added be improved?

I do think some of his policies are not as detailed here as they could be. I especially want more information on why he thought whites should be excluded from the ANC (that is an important detail and I just think you can expand on it more.) Also you say other organizations were inspired by Subukwe and I think you should provide one or two examples of those organizations.

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
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)