User:Michaelaelan

Peer Review for Warlord Article

Overall I think the content of this page is good. I think information wise you have a good grasp of the material. I think what would be most helpful for this article moving forward is a restructuring or shifting around of a few things you already have in place.

Introduction

The introduction paragraph is a bit long. It would make sense to move the portion that starts, "There are two major functional distinctions when considering warlords vis-à-vis their relationship," into the first subsection on definition. Splitting into to subtitles, cooperative warlord politics and ungoverned warlordism, might make it more clear as well.

Definition

Instead of defining warlord here again with the same sentence you used in your lead in, you can talk about the categorization of warlords as you do briefly in the preceding section. i think this would be a better place for it. Right now as it stands this section is redundant and could be deleted as it doesn't advance your article or provide new information.

Warlordism

To start off this section should have a clearer definition of warlordism. There is one provided in the lead in, "Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world’s societies until the modern state became ubiquitous globally," that could work here. Further down in the subsection on, "Warlordism in the Context of European Feudalism," there are further definitions or understandings that could be moved to the begining of the main section. They are as follows, "Warlordism is a term that can be applied to political functionality, as several countries have used it within the context of political governance." "The word "warlord" entered the English language as a translation from the German word "Kriegsherr", which was an official title of the German Emperor. Its use for Chinese military commanders who had a regional power base and ruled independently of the central government dates from the early 1920s, with Bertram Lenox Simpson being one source, according to the Oxford English Dictionary." "Warlordism frequently appears in failed states, states in which central government and nationwide authorities have collapsed or exist merely formally without actual control over the state territory. They are usually defined by a high level of clientelism, low bureaucratic control, and a high motivation to prolong war for the maintenance of their economic system. Sometimes, for example - in the case of Afghanistan, the central state cooperates with warlords to govern the territories which it doesn't have de facto control over."

In the lead in for the section you also mention that there is a divergence in the field of what constitutes warlordism. This would make another good subsection and would showcase scholarly theory on both sides, creating a well rounded article.

Government Styles

Maybe consider changing the title of this section to Governing Styles.

Examples

You have quite a few examples and the ones you have taken the time to expand on are good. However I think it would do your article service to categorize them. it would make more sense to me if you had of possibly split your article into the two functional distinctions of warlords relationship to the state and then listed the examples under each distinction as it pertained. This is just one option. As it is right now they are good descriptions of where warlords exist but they do not theory you put forth earlier in the article. {{SUBST:lowercase}} michaelaelan (talk) 10:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)