User:RQWill/2002 Malagasy political crisis/Jeremytorres1151 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

RQWill


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RQWill/2002_Malagasy_political_crisis?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 2002 Malagasy political crisis

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.)

The lead has been slightly modified but does not necessarily reflect the new information added to the article. Although this is the case, the lead does concisely and clearly describe the article's topic. It does not include a brief description of the article's major sections but it does not include information that is not present in the article and it is concise and not overly detailed.

The content added does a great job providing content that is relevant to the topic and addresses the equity gaps that Wikipedia struggles addressing at times. The original page is very brief and doesn't provide much background for the political crisis but the new content doesn't miss anything important, is up to date and does a great job at providing more important information for this topic.

The overall tone of the new content is pretty neutral. There are a few words used such as "important" that could be seen as being biased in certain contexts but when taken in context with the rest of the article, there are no major red flags from a neutrality standpoint. Based on this and the wide spectrum (African, Western, etc) of sources used, the content does not appear to be attempting persuade readers in one direction or another.

I was very impressed by the sources and references used in the new content. All of the new content is backed up by reliable sources (peer reviewed, journalistic, etc) and the content does a good job at reflecting what these sources say. The sources are relatively thorough but since the event in question took place two decades ago, many of the sources are not current because they were published during the crisis. The source links work and given the spectrum of sources used, historically marginalized groups are represented here and the author did a good job at including the best sources at their disposal.

The content overall is very well organized. There are a few grammatical mistakes here and there but overall, the content is easy to read and broken up into very clear sections that address some of the gaps missing in the original page.

There are no images but I think the addition of the table that shows the voting share breakdown for both presidential candidates is a net positive for the wikipedia page because it helps visualize the raw statistics that contributed to the conflict.

The content added improves the quality of the article drastically. Considering this political crisis is so heavily influenced by the two presidential candidates, I thought the additional information about the candidates and their backgrounds was a really good addition. I also though the addition of a section on the Dakar Summits was very important and something that I wish wasn't left out of the original page. Since this draft is so well written, I do not have many suggestions for ways to improve the articles besides perhaps providing more information on the events that led to the election since that section is rather scarce and appears to have more room for improvement.

Response
Hi Jeremy!

Thanks for such an in-depth review! Per your feedback, I'll definitely keep developing my lead as I continue to add to my article. To be honest, it was somewhat low on the priority list for the rough draft since I knew that the rest of the article might still change considerably, which would then need to be reflected in the lead. Moreover, at your suggestion I've dropped the word "important" from the article. I agree that in context it probably isn't that biased, but I think I'll play this on the safe side and let the reader make their own conclusions. I'll keep editing for grammar and other mistakes as this continues. Thanks again for your feedback!

Best,

Riley