User talk:LJGriffin98/sandbox

Peer Review -- Nicolas Friedlich
Nicolas Friedlich Peer Review Structure for feedback: 1. )Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? 2.) Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? 3.) Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? 4.) Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? 5.) Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? 6.) Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

Luckey, this article seems quite promising and I think you've done an excellent job ensuring a neutral voice throughout. I'll list my feedback below, but for a source that, as we discussed in section, does not necessarily have a great deal of scholarship exclusively devoted to it, I think you've done great work so far!

1.) Your article begins with a very clear and succinct lead section. It might be worth inserting "national" in front of "voluntary political association" to immediately communicate the federal nature of the association. In addition, I think you might want to include more information in this lead section regarding how the South Africa Local Government Association functions in practice. Does it convene annually? In what location does it meet and how is it determined who represents each locale? Is it a standardized process for determining who attends the Association, or does it depend on local and regional contexts? I see below that you have a "Structure" section, but it might be worth indicating some of the technical information earlier on in the lead section as well. I also see that you allude to criticism that the SALGA is ineffective and include a section for it later on (and that you plan to do more research here) -- once you find more specific info on this, it might be worth including exactly from where this opposition is coming, and what might help to explain these grievances.

2.) The article maintains a great sense of neutrality throughout. Most of the article as it stands now seems to be explaining the logistical and technical elements of the SALGA, and so the claims being made do not lend themselves to bias. I would say, though, that it might be worth offering contextual information on the criticism you allude to so as to avoid claims of purposely omitting the ways in which the opposition to SALGA has originated once you do further research on it.

3.) As mentioned above, I do not see any evidence of bias or mischaracterization of viewpoints in the article draft. The only critique that one might make would be that of bias through omission, although I see your asterisks indicating the further research you plan on doing so that should not pose a problem. Both the Cameron and the Mbatsha and McIntyre sources seem quite promising in information they might provide regarding SAGLA efficacy, budgetary restrictions, and regional failings/ successes.

4.) The citations and links all seem to be functioning well. The sources represent the claims accurately, as the primary source is the SALGA's own literature on its genesis, function, and mission. In this way, the article is devoid of bias or inaccurate representation. As I've mentioned elsewhere, it might be worth continuing to pull from sources that provide more statistical analysis of the SAGLA's record and how it might differ from community to community. By relying on quantitative studies such as these, as it seems the Cameron and the Mbatsha and McIntyre sources do, a fellow editor would be hard-pressed to make an accusation of bias. I think this might be the area where the article could stand to improve the most as you would using hard, quantitative analyses to provide evidence regarding how well the SAGLA has done to achieve its stated mission of representing local communities and giving them a platform for assistance and advocacy.

5.) I'm not certain that it's necessary to indicate that evidence is coming directly from the SAGLA website as the information is being used to describe the core functions and mission of SAGLA, not making any value judgements about its efficacy or record. I would recommend not relying a great deal more on the website itself for future analysis, as criticisms may potentially emerge involving source bias.

6.) All information seems to be up to date according to the sources used. Generally speaking, I think it might be worth considering adding a section detailing the political history that enabled the SAGLA to be included in the constitution ratified in 2000. This will allow the reader to understand in greater detail why both assistance and autonomy for local government have been so instrumental in South African history. Tracing the lineage to the 1973 Companies Act and how the SAGLA was formed initially in the Apartheid era might help to provide context on its current manifestation and how its functions have changed over time and into the post-1990s transition. As well, explaining in greater detail how it is exactly that the SAGLA "advocates for local and municipal interests at the provincial and national political levels" will make the direct effects and capacities of the SAGLA more accessible to the reader. Is it directly collaborating with the National Assembly or the National Council of Provinces -- or by some other means? Beyond this, I think it might also be significant to include the precise budgetary breakdown in your "Structure" section. By doing this, you would give the reader a much clearer idea of what percentage of the SAGLA's functioning is derived from member fees and what is derived from the national budget.

As far as your entry's organization goes, you seems to be in good shape; and beyond potentially expanding on the political contexts and history that preceded the SAGLA's formation, I can't think of any gaping holes in your entry's structure as it stands now. As a reader, a section on political context would particularly interest me as I would be curious to know if the SAGLA has been used as a means of coercive control over local communities, or as a true means for devolution and autonomy -- and how such has changed from the end of Apartheid to the present.

This entry seems very promising and I look forward to seeing the finished version! Good luck with the rest! NickFriedlich (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)