User talk:Yesenia23pinon
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/African_Politics_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Yesenia23pinon, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Liliana Gutierrez's Peer Review
[edit]I was unsure whether I just had to fill out the template from the class wiki site or also leave you a message on your talk page, so I'm doing both! Overall, I can read the lead and have a general idea of what could be in the article. It does not provide a brief description of the different sections of the article, such as the significance of diamond exports, but that can probably wait under those sections are filled out. The content is relevant to the topic, but could also include a portion that talks whether or not the situation has changed or has stagnated or an explanation on why the lack of a people reserve was crucial in creating certain issues. The article does not push an argument and presents the facts in a clear manner that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. I liked how you provided more than one explanation of why the GOB decided to relocate the San people. I think the viewpoints presented are balanced; the neutral tone is good, considering how hard it can be to talk about topics surrounding minorities' rights and government. The sources used are both updated and varied, coming from academic journals and websites. Source five comes from an organization that may itself be biased, so I am uncertain if it can be a reliable source, but the other sources look pretty great. I did not notice any grammatical or spelling errors, and the information is presenting in a clear manner. Overall, the article provides information on the issue of land in Botswana and also establishes a great timeline for the development of this conflict. I can leave this page with a general understanding of the topic and it was fun to read. Great job! Liliana.Guti (talk) 00:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Tara Madhav's Peer Review
[edit]Whose work are you reviewing? Yesenia23pinon Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Yesenia23pinon/sandbox I liked what you've added to your article Yesenia! I just have a few comments:
The lead isn't updated yet, but I assume that would happen once the other sections are complete. It is concise and has a nice summary of the history of the San people's relationship with the government. However, I think the introductory sentence could be shortened or split into two. Additionally, the introductory sentence could talk about the conflict aspect of San-government relations (right now, it talks about the initial peaceful relations but not what followed). Overall, I found the lead to be effective but it could potentially be shortened.
Since you're building on an existing article, the information added is up-to-date based on the historical gaps you're trying to fill. Everything added is relevant. Nothing is included that is missing or that does not belong — the information added runs in chronological order, making it easy to read.
The tone used is neutral and unbiased. No viewpoints seem to be under or overrepresented. You address both the government's point of view and the San people's experience, particularly by adding the section at the end on "First People of the Kalahari."
The sources are relatively current and sourced from reliable journals. From my perspective, the sources look thorough and comprehensive in their treatment of the conflict. The only thing I would underline for sources is to add one more to reach the minimum number of sources required, but I assume that will happen as you add to your section on the diamond and land conflict.
The content is well-written and well-organized, fitting well into the existing structure. I have a couple of highlights:
- "blocked the possibilities of an expansion" could be written as "blocked the possibility"
- "no concrete actions were exerted" could become "no concrete actions were taken"
Overall, I felt like your sections and content filled in missing categories to the existing article very well. On the Wikipedia page about the San people, the section on ancestral land rights in Botswana included this link talking about methods of forced relocation which might be useful: http://unsr.jamesanaya.org/docs/countries/2010_report_botswana_en.pdf. Its heavily cited in the original article, but perhaps it might have some information for your new sections. All the best for your final draft! Taram21 (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)