User:WadeBucket/Republic of the Congo Civil War (1993–1994)/Earthboundsunseeker Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

WadeBucket


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WadeBucket/Republic_of_the_Congo_Civil_War_%281993%E2%80%931994%29?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Republic of the Congo Civil War (1993–1994)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello Wade!

What a great article to expand. I see that the existing article for the Congo Civil War is one measly paragraph that does not read smoothly, lacks in-text citations, and only has two sources. I love to see how much content you've already added! Here are some notes I made in reference to each section as it stands:

Lead

I think the first sentence of the article should be more concise. From this lead paragraph alone, I cannot garner who specifically fought in the conflict, or what the causes of the civil war were. I feel like this is definitely information that should be added in the lead section, as to present the reader with a quick summary to set up the rest of the article. Also, I feel like the following sentence, "The First Civil War and the decade of conflict that followed shaped the history of the modern Republic of the Congo, the violence resulting in the deaths of over 12,000 people and the displacement of 860,000 more," would be stronger if it were cut into two sentences.

Just make sure that the lead section reflects all the big ideas that you are adding in the rest of the article. Treat the lead almost as you would treat the conclusion paragraph of a research paper, wherein you restate your thesis and circle back to all the major points that the article presents.

A Brief History of Government in Congo-Brazzaville

You can delete the first sentence in this paragraph, "A brief history may be useful in examining the causes of conflict and the continued instability of the Congo-Brazzaville region," as it is redundant to the section title. Instead, just get straight into the history by employing active voice instead of passive voice.

Government under Lissouba

This is a very minor note in an otherwise excellent paragraph, but in the sentence, "Lissouba didn't give any of Sassou's followers prominent positions in the cabinet, which deprived Sassou of access to "key sources of oil rents and patronage,"' I would omit the "didn't" contraction and replace it with "did not" in order to retain a professional tone. Also, a few sentences later you write, "He called for a new election in 1993, hoping to win by an overwhelming margin to solidify his power." I would recommend you define who you are talking about instead of saying "he", just because you mention both Lissouba and Sassou in the preceding sentence.

Additional Notes:


 * I think your addition of the "Relevant Groups" section is an excellent choice and really speaks to the different internal/external actors aspect that we've discussed in class
 * Perhaps add a few images?
 * Your sources look great! Keep it up!

Good luck with the rest!!