User talk:MegStern/Agriculture in The Gambia

[Alicia's] peer review
You have selected an interesting topic that will be a beneficial addition to Wikipedia. Below is the feedback I have on your draft based on the peer review questions:

Lead: The Lead does a great job of providing a clear and brief description of the major sections in the article. The Lead’s content is relevant to the article content provided. The Lead is concise and descriptive enough to provide sufficient background context for the reader. In the Lead, I would add a bit more than the agricultural sector’s impact on the Gambian economy given that the article touches on other sectors. For example, in the following paragraphs of the Lead section, you mention agriculture’s impact on Gambians’ access to food and environmental changes. Consider adding a brief word about these important impacts in the Lead so that readers can have a clearer idea of where the article is going.

Content: You did a good job of providing relevant and current content. The article does address one of Wikipedia’s content gaps by the writers providing more information about a subtopic that is often not discussed in Western academia. There are only a few areas I would like to mention. The last sentence for the article body subsection under cash crops seems to have an unfinished sentence, “Groundnuts and the Groundnut Trade”. In the third paragraph under Cash Crops, there is a mention of “slave trade” that should specify which slave trade is being referred to (Trans- Atlantic Slave Trade?). In the end of the third paragraph, starting with, “The prioritizing…” this area should specify exactly what is being prioritized by recapping the previous sentence.

Tone and Balance: Overall, you did a great job of keeping the article’s language neutral. The only part I would look back into is the Taiwan and China Irrigation Project language about outlining the “successes and failures”. I see that this sentence is setting up the paragraph content and the language may change. If planning to use this language, perhaps rephrase as to what the project has done for Gambians and stick to more neutral terminology.

Sources and References: You did a nice job of providing a wide range of credible secondary sources. The content provided provides an accurate representation of the sources cited in the article and are current. The sources provided are thorough and provide specific examples. All the links are functional and bring me to the corresponding website. The only change I would make is to find another source for the Women’s Property Law Blog website. While this is an important issue, I would look for a reliable source to best support the Land Ownership Customs section.

Organization: The content in the article is well-written and easy to follow. The article content is very well-organized. The sections outlined are clear and connect to the corresponding content.

Overall feedback: The article was intriguing to read about a certain field of study that often does not get highlighted in Western academia. Not only did you do a fantastic job of compiling interesting topics related to Gambian agriculture, but the topics were also timely which will further intrigue readers. An area that I noticed connected to my article was the environment section, specifically community grassroots efforts. Perhaps consider diving into this area a bit more since community grassroots work led by Gambians are not normally highlighted. The areas that you did well were organization, diversity of sources, and currently relevant topics. The one area that can be improved is keeping a neutral tone. Fisheralicia0 (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)