User:Tuvalu Pareto/Iran hostage crisis negotiations/BobAllen1357 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Tuvalu Pareto


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tuvalu%20Pareto/Iran_hostage_crisis_negotiations?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Iran hostage crisis negotiations

Evaluate the drafted changes
'''I am having a lot of trouble viewing the peer’s changes. The sandbox draft is completely blank. I see that Tuvalu has made changes to the Wikipedia page itself, but the revisions appear to have taken place in many small sections. Given this, I will do my best to still provide feedback on the changes that I am currently able to view on the Wikipedia page itself.'''

Lead

Guiding questions: The “Lead” is not applicable in this case; there is no lead provided.

Content

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added relevant to the topic?


 * Yes, the content appears to add more nuance to the     existing article.  For example,      Tuvalu added specifics about how many Security Council members voted in      favor of the sanctions, the Shah of Iran’s role in releasing the      hostages, and how/why the initial rescue operation was a failure.

·       Is the content added up-to-date?


 * Yes, the added content draws on recent sources.  I Googled the basic facts that Tuvalu     added and found that there are multiple sources that all agree with the general      topic-related facts.  Therefore, the      additions are credible.

·       Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?


 * The additions are still missing more context about     why each member of the Security Council voted a specific way.  To remedy this issue, I would recommend      linking the additions to another Wikipedia article that has information      about this content (avoids repetitive Wikipedia content while adding more      nuance to the existing Iran Hostage Crisis article).

·       Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?


 * I believe so – it mentions the “death of eight     servicemen during the attempted escape.”       These individuals were likely overlooked in the past, so the      changes draw attention to these specific individuals who suffered as a result      of the helicopter failure.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added neutral?


 * Yes, the content is neutral.  In an issue that could be politically     controversial, Tuvalu does a good job maintaining a neutral tone and      reporting facts rather than taking a stance about specific governmental      actions.

·       Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?


 * All of the information added can be found in numerous     other sources (as mentioned before), so it seems to be relatively unbiased.

·       Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?


 * Although it does not represent a specific positive/negative     viewpoint regarding the hostage crisis, there is not any discussion of      who took office after Cyrus Vance steps down.  It might be beneficial to add context about      the new leader who replaced him (after his failed attempt to rescue the      hostages).

·       Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?


 * No, this is not an issue here.  The content does not attempt to     persuade the reader to adopt any specific viewpoint.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

·       Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?


 * As previously mentioned, there are lots of sources     that echo the same facts added by Tuvalu.

·       Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)


 * Yes – the content paraphrases general information     from the added articles.

·       Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?


 * Since two articles are from the US Department of     State, they are reliable in terms of general information about the      hostage crisis.  These seem to be      good selections.  Tuvalu also      brings in a source from AP News which may be slightly less reliable, but      its facts about key moments in the Iran Hostage Crisis appear in many      other articles as well, so they are likely trustworthy.

·       Are the sources current?


 * The AP News article is from 2019, and the US     Department of State articles do not have a date (but it can be assumed      that they are frequently updates).       Therefore, the sources are current.

·       Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?


 * The sources do not include historically marginalized     individuals since two are from the US government and one comes from a large      media organization.  It might be      beneficial to incorporate sources written by organizations outside of the      US for a more diverse perspective.       For instance, looking at Iran’s media coverage of the hostage      crisis would be useful as well.

·       Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)


 * Here are a few articles I came across that are     peer-reviewed, reputable, and include more nuanced content:
 * https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James-Larson/publication/228039839_Television_and_US_Foreign_Policy_The_Case_of_the_Iran_Hostage_Crisis/links/5c330208458515a4c712bfb4/Television-and-US-Foreign-Policy-The-Case-of-the-Iran-Hostage-Crisis.pdf
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00989812
 * https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/abs/iran-hostage-crisis-easy-answers-and-hard-questions/183B90162534C98D6432B6A942BE5A49

·       Check a few links. Do they work?


 * All of the added links work.

Organization

Guiding questions:

·       Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?


 * Yes, as mentioned in the content section, the added     paragraphs are straightforward, unbiased, and factually relevant.

·       Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?


 * “The next unsuccessful attempt occurred in April,     which entailed the imposition of western sanctions and the deployment of      US military forces in Iran as a rescue operation.”
 * ^^this sentence does not need a comma after “April”

·       Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?


 * The new content was added to existing sections of the     article, so it does not appear to disrupt the flow.