User talk:Haruka Senju/sandbox

Daniel Garcia's Peer Review
Hello Haruka,

After reviewing your article, I wanted to point out that you do an amazing job with your structure. The subsections that you created for the article are well-developed and will add a lot of important missing information. I would like to see all the information that you are able to find and add to the article. Some improvement could be done by adding more academic articles and creating a section specifically for references. Maybe you could also add a section about the impact that the king had on Rwanda not only during that time of the regime but also to the current state.

Although the lead section is well developed, I think there is some room for improvement about the regime of the king. I think some more information about what happened during those years is important and necessary for a better understanding of the topic.

I look forward to reading all your future content about this interesting article.

Dgarcia376 (talk) 05:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

bks96's Peer Review of Kigeli IV of Rwanda
I think the current form of the article serves as a great outline for what could be developed. The headers you have included are great options for topics.

New information in those sections would greatly help in conveying the political scenario at the time of the regime and especially better develop an understanding of the legacy we know of post-decolonization. I think that the administrative reforms and colonial influence would be the most important for developing exactly those periods of time I referenced. I am also interested in what could be introduced under the royal family section since there appears to be importance in what you added to the article already. I imagine it will be very important to cover more than one viewpoint in finding relevant information and using neutral language as issues of identity remain relevant. Developing those sections also seems like the logical next step due to the lead already being decently developed.

At the same time, the lead could be reworked as some information seems somewhat disorganized and poorly ordered. For example, I think that the years of reign could be mentioned much earlier, especially because the first sentence redundantly mentions that the king ruled in the late 19th century. Bks96 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)