User talk:JustJanani/sandbox

What does the article do well? - This article provides a solid, informative, and clear summary of terrorism in Burkina Faso. I believe Janani did a great job at finding reliable resources in order to ensure she was providing the most accurate overview. The sections were clearly organized, which made her article easy to follow.

'''Where do I see room for improvement or further development? Why?''' - Some of the sections haven't been developed yet but I believe once that occurs, this article will be able to hold its own. I would encourage Janani to further research terrorist attacks prior to 2015. If I were writing this article, I would also dedicate a section to counter-terrorism efforts by the government and any community organizations.

What's the most important thing the author can do to improve the article? - Make certain that you are not including any kind of bias or over-analyzing certain issues. I believe the "impacts of terrorism" section would require it's own full article and do not think that it is absolutely necessary here.

'''Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense?''' - The article does make sense and is very well-organized. Despite my lack of knowledge on the topic, I did not have any trouble following what she was saying.

Did I notice anything about the article that could be applied to my own? - I noticed she provided examples of terrorist attacks in a table and would like to apply that to my own article in order to better organize it.

As a reader, what else would I want to know about the topic? -I would be interested in knowing how terrorism has affected the communities in Burkina Faso.

How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?

Lead section: - This section provides a structured overview of the issue without providing details that are too specific.

Clear Structure - The sections are clearly organized. She was able to contextualize the information by describing the history of terrorism in the region, listing the organizations, and providing specific examples of terrorist attacks.

Balanced Coverage - Perhaps discussing the external and internal factors that initiate, influence, or exacerbate terrorism in Burkina Faso would be helpful

Neutral Content - I see no biases in this article but please make sure that this continues through the final end product.

Reliable Sources - The government databases are solid sources but I believe including more academic research on the subject would make this article even stronger.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenajgomez (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Lachlan's Peer Review
What does the article do well?

-The article provides an an excellent overview of the issue of Terrorism in Burkina Faso, and once published will stand as a useful resource for those interested in exploring the subject further. The writing is clear, the information well sourced, and the structure makes sense.

'''Where do I see room for improvement or further development? Why?'''

-While at this stage it is difficult to asses how comprehensive the final version will be, I would encourage well developed sections on Counter-terrorism Efforts and Impacts of Terrorism (to the extent that is possible, of course), as these sections have the potential to be the most complex and interesting. Additionally, the author has put a short description of why terrorism has increased in recent years under the subsection of List of Major Incidents. This seems to more directly address causes of terrorism, which could easily be made into a new subsection and possibly explored further. Lastly, I feel that the author should address the article's historical scope: if Burkina Faso had no terrorism prior to 2015, make that explicit, if they did, address it briefly.

What's the most important thing the author can do to improve the article?

-As stated above, the article's scope and comprehensiveness strike me as the most significant to keep an eye on, especially if the author wants to stay true to the article's relatively broad title. This doesn't have to require more writing, links to relevant articles could work too.

'''Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense?'''

-I find this article to be very well organized. The subsections are well chosen and well ordered, and flow nicely. The writing itself is clear as well.

Did I notice anything about the article that could be applied to my own?

-The article approaches a difficult, perhaps contentious topic evenhandedly and straightforwardly. As my topic also deals with controversial discussions of violence by state and non-state actors, this article provides a useful example.

As a reader, what else would I want to know about the topic?

-I would be interested in why external terrorist orgs target Burkina Faso specifically.

How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?

Lead section:

-The lead section is well organized and introduces the reader to all the sections that the article develops further.

Clear Structure

-Structure is clear, flows well, and makes sense. I only felt that the heading of "List of Major Terrorist Incidents" was unclear, not knowing what defined a "major" incident.

Balanced Coverage

-Balance is difficult to assess at this point, but I have little doubt that each section will be well developed. As mentioned above, the article could benefit from a section on causes and a note on pre-2015 terrorism.

Neutral Content

-I see no biases in this article.

Reliable Sources

-The article uses an impressive number of citations from reputable sources. However, most of them are journalistic publications or government databases. More peer reviewed, scholarly work would improve the article (if available).

Lachlanbebout (talk) 04:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)Lachlanbebout