User:Rainbowsquid33/Policy of deliberate ambiguity/Fluffpups Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rainbowsquid33


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rainbowsquid33/Policy_of_deliberate_ambiguity?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Policy of deliberate ambiguity

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:

The lead section of the article doesn't have any citations. Try to find some of the sources for the material and add the citations in if possible. The lead section says "It may be useful if the country has contrary foreign and domestic policy goals..." this sentence could be rewritten to a more neutral tone. The article launches right into a section called "China" which felt a little abrupt to me, maybe consider adding a description of the articles sections or an overview.

Content:

The first section, "China" doesn't have any citations, it would be great if you could try add some of those to the article! In the "Israel" section the sentence "Most analysts agree that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons." feels a bit persuasive, try rewriting it to be more neutral. Some of the sentences in the article are a bit complex or hard to follow, maybe you could go through and try to rephrase some of the confusing sentences. For example, the first sentence in the Taiwan paragraph, "The oldest and longest running of the United States' deliberately ambiguous policies was whether and how it would defend the Republic of China on Taiwan in the event of an attack by the People's Republic of China (Mainland China)" is a bit wordy and could be made more concise.

Sources and References:

The article is missing a lot of sources. The links in the references section do work however some of them are from biased sources like Fox News, CNN, and more news cites. I would try to find more reliable sources to add to your article.

Organization:

The structure of the article as it is makes sense. The examples of strategic ambiguity from different countries follows a clear structure. However, I feel like the article launches into those examples rather quickly. Consider adding a section right after the lead paragraph about the history of the concept or a little more general information about the topic before launching right into real world examples.

Overall the article is missing a lot of citations which is challenging. Try your best to find the sources or different sources and add in new cited material. The article also has some complex sentences. Try to make the article more clear and concise. As a reader, it was a little challenging to follow. I also think some of the existing sentences in the article are a bit persuasive. Maybe you could go through and try to make them more neutral in tone.