User:PatrickTheveny/East African Federation/Shemley1823 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

patricktheveny


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickTheveny/East_African_Federation?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * East African Federation

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead is not applicable as you did not edit the lead. As far as content, I think this is a really good start. You might want to think about just adding links to pages throughout the body. The content seems relevant and up to date, especially since this pertains to the most recent part of the article. This is just a general question, but has anything happened since 2020? It's been two years, so has anything happened with Uganda? Because this addresses African politics, it does fill an equity gap. You do have an unnecessary capitalization in "For Instance" and "Customs Union." Also the second sentence of motivations should say "capital labor laws were introduced." This sentence as a whole actually was somewhat confusing to read. This entire section also could probably be revised in terms of rhetorical makeup because it does feel a little wordy and "report like" rather than a wikipedia page. I know that the main article also discusses happenings in 2022, do you plan to expand on that at all? I also am kind of unsure how the second paragraph in your main article body connects to this part of the article. Does it need to go in a different part of the timeline or under a different section? I also think the background section itself could be expanded. I would also maybe look at Angus's "membership section" on his article on an African aviation treaty, as I think your article might be served in having a section like that with links as well. I don't think there are any issues with tone or neutrality, but I wonder since you're adding a "motivations" section, should you balance it out with a backlash or reactions section? The references you do have are good, but I would add more as well as I might look at a wider range of sources, especially with some pieces that are published in 2020 onward. The organization is a little difficult to decipher due to the fact that I can't see it in the context of the full article. However, I still would try to work on using sections and subsections to help create more clarity. You don't add any media, but I don't think you need to because the article already has quite a bit. Unlike most articles on African politics, the original article is actually fairly alright with quite a lot of media, text, and citations. Therefore, I think it might be helpful to really work on either a) piecing together what the gap actually is or b) continue adding links to other pages throughout the article and your additions to the article. As of now, I only really see you having added motivations and a little bit more about 2020. However, if the point is to add more recent updates, then I would continue to work on 2020-2022. Otherwise, I would also continue with linking. Overall, it's a good start, but I think you could definitely add more content and sources.

Thanks for the peer review, appreciate the feedback! I did not edit the lead of the initial page as I though the original pages lead would suffice, but through advice from my other peer review I'm going to reevaluate whether that is the case. I had not added links from a few sources that were in the initial page because I was under the belief they would already have been cited when I move my edits from the sandbox. Since the peer review process, though, I have added a few that I have read, and will continue to add more as I work on my draft more. Thanks for the check on the grammatical error, was not careful enough with that when writing up the draft, but will be more cognizant of that before making real edits to the page. As far as has anything happened in the past two years, not really. The leaders of the countries continue to endorse the federation, and different cites list different plans as far as actually going through with the plan (some listing 2023 as the year the federation will actually culminate), but I can't really find anything of note occurring now. I did have concerns regarding the motivations section, and its compliance with the wikipedia writing protocols, and I can read through it to ensure it doesn't run into the issue you've highlighted. I like your idea of balancing out this section with backlash surrounding the federation, and may combine your advice with that of Angus's who suggested something like a reaction section rather than a motivation section. The second paragraph may even be tied into that section instead of being lumped into the background section, although I didn't think its positioning there was that out of place in relation tot the rest of that section. A membership section would be good, although the deal has not really progressed enough to include all sorts technical facets of membership for the countries, so there might be some difficulty there. In terms of media, I agree that the original page already have a good amount, but I could still look for some gaps to fill if possible in my final page edit. I'll definitely take your advice in seeking to fill in the gaps further in the original article, and linking more articles to the page, and I think I will try and find more recent. updates, although that has proven fairly difficult. Thank you again!