User:Owen.maier/Hussein Mwinyi/Jamesrjb7 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

owen.maier


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Owen.maier/Hussein_Mwinyi?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Hussein Mwinyi

Evaluate the drafted changes
General Notes:

This is a really well done, well sourced expansion! It's not particularly long, but that's totally ok because you can tell that a lot of work has gone into verifying everything that's synthesized here. See below for some suggestions on more expansion that could be done, but if that can't be sourced in English, this is awesome!


 * Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?
 * The lead itself is pretty short, but I think it does a good job of explaining Mwinyi's current positions and importance. Maybe the addition of all the rest of his various positions, such as the Health and Social Welfare and Union Affairs tenures would add weight to his perceived importance. Also maybe mentioning that Zanzibar is an autonomous region of Tanzania? That clarifies the significance of his Presidency.
 * Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information?
 * I'd say so. A possible addition might be one sentence on his accomplishments as President. Or at least something like, "in his presidency he has addressed women's rights and set development goals for Zanzibar" that are detailed later.
 * Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant?
 * The lead accurately reflects the weight and significance of Mwiyi's political experience, especially when contrasted with the relative lack of information on anything concerning him outside of politics. The reporting and sources don't really focus on anything except his political life, so it makes sense that this is given the most space.


 * Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?
 * The sections make sense, as they are organized chronologically from early life to his Presidency, and then follows the structure of other Wikipedia articles I've seen in putting personal life last.


 * Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?
 * Nothing is off topic, but I wonder if there are any more sources on his career before winning the Presidency? He seems like he was a high profile figure in Zanzibar politics before winning the Presidency. Perhaps articles on other administrations have record of his accomplishments or actions as Defense or Health minister?
 * Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing?
 * There's dual weight given to both his successes at the ballot box as well as fighting corruption and criticism of his development goals, which is really interesting to see especially given the CCM's dominant party status in Tanzania as a whole. Is there any reporting or other sources on his women's rights policy? I'd be interested to see both sides of that issue.
 * Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?
 * The information in the article presents mostly positive accomplishments of Mwinyi's administration, but that might just be because he's been a broadly effective politician. Is there any record of his response to COVID, given that he took office in the middle of the pandemic. How do his views on policy issues compare to the party lines advocated by CCM? If these positions can be corroborated using his own rhetoric from public speeches or statements, you might consider adding a "political positions" section as well as focusing on his administration's accomplishments.


 * Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article?
 * No. It reads as unbiased and reporting factual information, which is corroborated by the sources. It certainly doesn't sound as though its written to be partial to him, particularly because of the criticism in the Development section.
 * Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."
 * No language like this exists in the actual article, even though some does exist quoting others. The criticism in the development section might be expanded. "criticized by some" could be more specific, and if any other source can be found aside from official government data to confirm or contrast the economic growth indicators, that could provide good context. The wording on the expanded permit section might also be made more neutral by including references to the actual policy steps taken to make it easier to procure permits. What did Mwinyi's government do in practice that made it easier? Has there been a corresponding rise in permit applications or grants?
 * Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."
 * See above.
 * Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.
 * See above on drawing conclusions/convincing reader. It doesn't read as biased, but there could be more information/perspectives added if they can be sourced.


 * Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?
 * This article is really well sourced! Particularly given that a lot of these links are through ProQuest or other databases, the information is definitely corroborated and verifiable. As stated above, you might want to find data to corroborate the government provided economic growth figures.
 * Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view.
 * Yes, there are usually only one or two sources per statement, but those sources seems to be unbiased. Doesn't hurt to corroborate with additional viewpoints, but if none can be found in english that's ok.
 * Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately!
 * Not really, though I'd love to see the Mwinyi statement that this statement is derived from: "permits that according to Mwinyi can further be used to secure loans from banks."

Response
Thanks James. I love your suggestions and think they will all be helpful for my article. Mwinyi entered in the midst of a global pandemic, so I should absolutely include information about covid. Daniel also commented on the tone of the article as factual, but most sources did favor Mwinyi's presidency. I'm going to look for more local news sources that will hopefully find some pushback in his administration, because I am sure he has not been perfect. I also will cite that one sentence, that will be a quick and easy fix. Thank you also for all the suggestions of making the permit section more thorough, I'll take care of that. I'll also make sure to expand pre-presidency information because I think that will help give context to who this guy is in the first place. Thanks so much James!