User talk:Mordian/sandbox

Kunta's Peer Review
- The Lead is good and it clearly gives the reader an idea about the article.

- In terms of neutrality in the content, I think for the most part I see no bias in your reporting. However, in the corruption part in the Health Care sector, it could have been more balance if you have another source on the side of healthcare workers as to if they indeed received bribers from patients. I like the reference to Afrobarometer survey which is a very credible survey conducted on the continent.

- The content and structure is is well organized! Kudos. Also, may be if you can extend or add in the role of transnational corporation in promoting corruption in Sierra Leon especially in the diamond mining industry. And perhaps, you may add in couple of pictures, just a suggestion.

- Overall, I think the article is well written

Sabreen Abdelrahman's Peer Review
Lead: The lead is straight to the point and gives readers a good understanding of the topic of the article. Structure: The content and structure look well-organized! To help make the page more complete, you could add some more sectors in which corruption impacts Sierra Leone (i.e. economy, military, police, etc.) as well as sections about the forms of corruption (bribery, embezzlement, fraud, etc.) and anti-corruption efforts (whether through government legislation or NGOs). Balance: From the topics written out so far, they seem well-balanced. It makes sense that one section will have more detail than the other. Neutral content: Content is for the most part neutral and clear presentation of the facts. Just be careful in the lead with non-neutral terms like the use of "endemic." But the other sections look good. Sources: Have a variety of strong sources. Several of them are from reliable academic journals and official surveys without an obvious bias so that's great. SabreenAbd (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)