User:Oahmad2019/Mining in Sierra Leone/Colemason19 Peer Review

Peer Review from Cole
Omar--

I think you have a really strong first draft. I think your focus on the diamond part of this page is good, and you are making a very valuable intervention. Here are some suggestions for you as you move forward:

Organization
I think this page is nicely organized, but I think you could maybe rethink some of your section titles. On first glancee, they kind of all look like history. The first is history, and then the next two "Diamond Mining and the Civil War" and "De Beers and the Diamond Trade in the 2000s" also seem like history. I can tell that youre trying to emphasize the role that diamonds played in the civil war and the role of the De Beers company as separate topics in the content, so I wonder if you can make it more clear in the organization. I could see you doing a big title that is history and then subtitles that are like "historical overview", "diamond mining in civil war", etc. Or, you could make that first title flat out "historical overview" and not change the others. Take of leave this advice, just a thought

A second organization idea is to use the existing text which focuses on production and make it a section on the wikipedia page. Maybe fix up some of the sentences in the original because it could use a little work, but the information is good. Then you can have history and a production section under diamonds.

Tone/Grammar/Communication
This reads like a wikipedia article, so I think you have the neutral tone down. Here are a few suggestions for how to communicate some of the information you present in the article. Take or leave any of this, I'm not the expert on this topic but here are some things I noticed.

In the Diamond mining and Civil War section, you say that the corruption and ties to the illegal diamond trade led to the creation of the RUF. When I read this, I was thinking wow, diamonds must be really important. This may be the case, but I assume there were a lot of factors that led to the RUF forming (or maybe not). In that first sentence or two, could you give us a sense of how big of a factor the diamond mining was? Was it a small grievance or something big?

Also in that section, you bring up "blood diamonds." While I can infer what they are, you don't explicitly define them. Maybe add a more clear definition, and instead of doing quotations you could probably just link it to a wikipedia article if there is one.

You use a quote in the Diamond Mining in Sierra Leone Today section that comes from another source. I think Wikipedia discourages direct quotations and prefers paraphrasing and citing. You might want to switch that up.

Content
You are adding a lot of great information! Here are a couple of things to think about as it relates to what you have presented. As I said in organization, I recommend using the existing text so you can add a production section that gives us a sense of diamonds' contributions to the economy.

Obviously there is a lot that could be said about diamonds in Sierra Leone, and I think keeping your focus where it is doing enough. If you are looking to add more, you could think about including environmental impacts, public health impacts, etc.

With the way the current article is structured, there is a history section that talks about mining more broadly. Make sure there isn't duplicate information between your history section and that one. It looks like there is some overlap, so maybe edit that section to have the discussion of diamonds be more general, big picture, and then keep the specifics in your section.

You're off to a great start, keep it up!

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.)