User:KeeganmQuack/National Assembly (Botswana)/Max41022 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

KeeganmQuack


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:KeeganmQuack/National Assembly (Botswana)


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * National Assembly (Botswana)

Response to Peer Review
Thank you very much for leaving this review. Since I misunderstood the peer review response, I have already done a lot of work incorporating many of your suggestions. Overall, they have certainly helped me tackle some important shortcomings in my article. In particular, your comments about my lead section and my frequent use of passive voice have been very useful. When I first wrote the article, I think that I put too much focus on staying neutral and this led me to neglect referencing sources in the article. I have since gone back through my article and have credited specific political scientists and journalists with their specific opinions. I wonder, however, if name-dropping without giving their background only hinders readability. As I continue to do rounds of editing, I might consider incorporating quotes to improve this. Along with these comments, I also appreciated the fact that you wanted to know more about the BNF during the 1990s. Your comment helped me go back and read more carefully about this fascinating phase of Botswana's history. I then accordingly provided some clarification in my article. In the future, I might try to find a source that specifically talks about this period of history.

In terms of disagreement, there was only one comment - your suggestion to move the history section upwards - that I might not act upon. Personally, I would like to prioritize the role of the National Assembly in the article since I feel that this is important background. However, I am definitely going to keep your comment in mind as I continue to make edits. Finally, I also want to address the comment which came from both you and my other peer reviewer about the possible spelling error with the word "Batswana." In the articles that I read from African scholars, the word Batswana replaces the anglicized demonym Botswanan. However, I then read an interesting article which argues for Botswanan since Batswana means "of Tswana" and not everyone in Botswana is Tswana. I have since replaced Batswana with Botswanan, but I am not sure if I have made the right decision. Once again, thank you so much and good luck with the rest of your article.

Evaluate the drafted changes
Great article overall. Big changes include reordering the sections and checking for typos. See below for more details but not much to add. Great work!

Lead

-Lead Section is very good, covers important points succinctly

-Maybe add a section about the controversies and criticisms of the body in the lead section as they're covered later

Content

-2nd sentence of functioning section is a little awkward, maybe b/c of the use of "people"? Could use candidates or nominees instead?

-Line two of "public opinion section" contatins a typo with "Batswana" instead of Bostwana

-Last paragraph of that section also contains a typo with "former" instead of "formal"

-Speak in overly broad terms sometimes: "gained some critique from scholarly sources", "outside observers regard", "there is some worry", etc. Avoid passive voice and specify sources here if possible

-Want to hear more about BNF and near creation of two party system in addition to 'they almost created a two party system but failed'

Tone and Balance

-tone is very balanced and neutral in presenting positives and negatives-well done

Sources and References

-Sources are good and well placed throughout

Organization

-Make the Public Opinion section a header (just a typographic error)

-Loved the history section, maybe make it more a header section and move it to be the first section since it is relevant background