User talk:Thalia101/sandbox

LYDIA'S PEER REVIEW. ==

Hi Thalia,

Great article, nice content and structure, really loved both of your sources. I don't really think there is any thing much to work on based on the structure, but you can definitely work on the content its a very broad topic, you could look in to how they pass their bills, do they really adopt this human right regulations, how much help NGOs offer, and so on. basically I just think you can work a little more in the composition aspect of your article, and maybe the Power and Jurisdiction aspect as well.

Excellent draft though.

Ryan's Peer Review
Your article provides an exceptionally well presented and organized functional account of the African Court of Justice Evaluation, and how it’s powers are distributed over the regions which operate under the Court. Your writing style is presented in a very neutral manner, while laying out facts which do not give the impression of being biased in any capacity. You might want to consider placing a little more historical context in some sections, such as further explaining the negotiations process which was left slightly ambiguous in the history section. Otherwise, you have done a great job at providing an intuitive rundown of how these courts operate.

Your writing style, at times, could use a little more polishing. There are some words which may come across as being overly informal (I.e. “four solid years”) which you might want to rejig to convey a more encyclopedic portrayal. There are some minor spacing errors located in the “Overview” and “Jurisdiction and Powers” sections which should also be corrected.

Your strong organizational skills used to compose the contents of this article are heavily impeded by your lack of citations and sources. Use citations whenever delivering any factual accounts, and try finding a couple of more sources to provide a more balanced article.

Overall this article is very well written and organized, but would be even better with some minor grammatical and punctual tweaks, and putting to use a number of other citations to legitimize the facts you are laying out. If you can, also consider seeking further closure in the historical section regarding the negotiations process for African countries, and it’s implications on the development of the Court. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpmcdonald (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Tino's peer review
An interesting, well detailed article. Well expanded and explained. However, take note of use of language, particularly informal speech and unnecessarily using words that you otherwise can not do without. Take note of minor punctuation errors as well. Under the president, I’m not sure why a different font was used. Considering that your article is well detailed, it would need more references for back up the provided information. Comparing with the initial stub, there is a lot of work to be put in content wise and so far you are doing a great job. Remember to tag all pages that are available on Wikipedia. Moreover, your article is exceptionally organized and well structure. Some parts somewhat still unbaked which is only normal for an article you are still working on! The vocabulary used is simple and straightforward which makes your article clear and easy to understand. It would be good to research on the most recent judges too although up to date information may be difficult to find. I wish you all the best with your article and I am excited to see how it unfolds! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinomungoni (talk • contribs) 00:38, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thalia's Response
Thank you very much Lydia, Ryan, Tino and Leo for reviewing my article. l appreciate all the feedback you have given and will definitely start working on all the tweaks, errors and suggestions you gave me. Warm Regards!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thalia101 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC) Thank

Leo's Review
Overall your draft article is exceptionally laid out and is easy to follow. It is evident that you put a great deal of time into formulating this draft. While this draft is very good, I would like to point the ways in which you may improve your article. Many of these issues have already been addressed by previous reviews and include the issues of a lack of historical context and such. What I would like to point out for this review pertains to the issue regarding a lack of substance (which you point out in your evaluation) with regard to the court's judicial power as well as specific cases that have proven to be both beneficial and harmful to the court. I would like to recommend an area in which you may improve your article regarding its history. What I believe is lacking in the historical context refers to the specific dates in which each state joined the courts. I believe this would add substantial substance to the historical portion of this article. As previously mentioned I believe your work thus far is very good and well organized and I cannot wait to see the finished project. Best regard and good luck.Lpf028 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)