User:Rosenberg22/Humanitarianism in Africa/Gclarke2103 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rosenberg22


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rosenberg22/Humanitarianism_in_Africa?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Humanitarianism in Africa

Lead
I really like the first sentence of your Lead section because I think it accurately captures the content and relevancy of the article. The biggest critique I have about the lead section is that it is fairly long and complicated. I think your article would benefit from making this more concise and easier to parse, so that it is accessible to a greater population.

Content
I really like the way you began with a section on history, because it helps to ground the article in a sense of place and time.

Most of the information added is relevant and highly detailed, which helps to provide a complete picture of the issue. However, I dont know if it is necessary to start with such a lengthy definition of terms in the beginning. I think you could achieve the same goal by just linking the wikipedia pages of these topics as you mention them, or even including a one-sentence explanation where relevant. It makes the page seem a little too academic and it doesn't seem directly related to the topic (although i know you're writing about humanitarianism in africa). If one of these terms is unique to African humanitarianism (such as UN peacekeeping) you could expand on that as its own sub-section in another area of the page.

Along a similar thread, the section header "Areas of Focus" makes it seem like a paper you're writing as opposed to an information source. I'm not sure if you mean this is what your article will focus on, or that these are the areas of humanitarian focus in Africa, but this wording seems to give the author agency in what areas are being chosen to focus on. I would maybe change this to be "Areas of Humanitarian Focus" or "Focus Areas of Humanitarian Efforts".

The "Celebrity" section seems to be one that you didn't write, but I think if its going to remain in the article you should try to find some citations for the content in it (as it currently has zero citations). Also it could definitely be split into a couple sub-sections, because it is a little long. In this section, I'd remove words such as 'subjectivization' if they aren't defined because I don't think the average person would know what that meant. Additionally, the end of the second paragraph in this section comes across as fairly biased due to the use of emotional phrases such as 'passive helpless victim'. I think most of your article is wonderfully written and unbiased, so I just wanted to point out the few areas where that could be improved. Something that could improve the article in this way would be to discuss the other side of the argument regarding celebrity involvement (maybe just a sentence or two at the beginning/end).

Images and Media
I like the image you chose at the beginning! You could probably add a couple more throughout if you wanted, but not necessary.

It might be good to add an info-box on the right below the image, maybe with a brief timeline of Humanitarian Aid? or the amount of money spent or something like that.

Overall
Your additions have drastically improved the content in the existing article, and the depth you have provided on each topic is very impressive. The most striking improvement you have made is in the lead section, which began as only a sentence or two in the original article.

Response:

Hi Grace, thank you so much for providing such in-depth feedback. I agree that the celebrity section needs some work, but I tried to focus my time on things the article really needed (like terms, history, and examples) The area of focus critique makes sense and I will be sure to change that in my article. Regarding the lead, I'm not sure I will trim it down because I did want to include all the major things the article brings up, which is a lot. I may try to streamline it a little, but I don't think its too much. I think the terms also provide an important starting ground to even understand the article but you are probably right that it may be too academic. The problem with linking it to other pages is that a lot of the terms do not even have pages so providing the info here is important.