Jump to content

Talk:Education policy in Brazil

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lead section

[edit]

Hey folks. This article needs a lead section as described in WP:LEDE. Basket of Puppies 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice a lot of activity on this article today. You're doing a very good job in evolving it. Take a look at the LEDE link above and try to make the lede section a summary of the article and move the constitutional articles lower into the article. Basket of Puppies 01:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my plan. Some wikignome moved the constitution articles up to the top. I just haven't moved them back yet. Thanks for the advice and help.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs some work. I need to add a summary about the impacts of the policies, once I get that information into the rest of the article.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorin's Comments

[edit]

This is an interesting topic, especially considering Brazil's reputation as a model for Latin America in terms of social programming. The order of sections seems to make sense and will probably be much easier to navigate once you have time to clean up the references a bit. One thing that would be nice to include is the source of funding for the CCT program. It's probably included on the Bolsa Familia page, but it would be an easy piece of info to include in the body of your article as well, even if it's as simple as saying it's publicly funded through a tax, or whatever it is. Good job overall; it can't be easy to corral such a broad topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorink (talk • contribs) 14:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts from Pesky

[edit]

First: well done for taking on such a broad-scope (and difficult) project. Its embryonic stages show promise here. :o)

Thanks! I don't think I realized how huge it would be ;P Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next: I'd really like to see your 'working notes' being in hidden text, so that the readers don't get confused by what's actually artice prose and what are working notes; following on from this, how about some kind of 'article under construction' text (or banner, or whatever) at the top, which will explain to others why the article may look at bit 'bitty' for a while. It's clear on looking at the hisotry that this is in the process of being built, and that it's being worked on (and worked on well), but unless someone actually goes to check the history, they won't see this. Just an idea.

How do you make hidden text? I haven't done that before...Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Come back into this section in 'edit' mode .....
... see what I mean? Pesky (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is so cool! :) Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Next: what about including a section on the history of education in Brazil? This will give a bit of background for the current education policies, and the reasons for them. (A search on Google 'Scholar' and Google 'Books' — - click the 'more' link at the top of the Google window to get to them — might bring you up some nice stuff as sources for this.)

So there is an article about education in Brazil that weighs heavy on the history side, I guess I could like to it, though it needs work as well, I think. I had thought about trying a merge at some point but my scope is already so large. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it needs work, and you can see what it needs .... just dive in there and give it a helping hand :o) Any bnit of help you can give to another article is never wasted, and it gives your mind a break from getting too stuck in your main task-of-the-moment. Pesky (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's on my list, but I definitely want to get a handle on my article first... bit of a time crunch since it is part of this class. :)Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Prettifying': (lol!) A nice picture of a classroom of Brazilian children would be a good one, if you can find one (or get a contact to take one?) to go alongside the lede section. And, if you can, find a picture of 'historical conditions' to go alongside the proposed history-of-education section - it will highlight differences in a nice, easy to understand, visual way.

Next: ideally you'll want to combine the 'see also' sections at 2 and 8 - I'm sure you were going to do this anyway, but it's a nice easy fix to do quickly while you're thinking of how to go ahead with another bit.

Done. Thanks for the suggestion :)Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck with it - it's going to end up being a sound article. Have fun! Pesky (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! and thank-you for all the very helpful feedback!Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome. Pesky (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The "under construction" tag is this if you wish to add it:

{{Underconstruction|date=April 2011}}

If you use it, remember to remove it when you're generally done. Ideally it's use is suggested if you're going to take more than a day or two working on it. CycloneGU (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! Thanks!!!!Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes; 'under construction' is handy if you are mid large changes - but don't over-use it, because fundamentally all of Wikipedia is, of course, 'under construction'. People do tend to over-use it, sometimes.  Chzz  ►  08:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bejinhan's Comments

[edit]
  • These were: i) equalizing funding across regions, states and municipalities with the FUNDEF reform; ii) measuring the learning of all children on a common national yardstick (SAEB); and iii) protecting the educational opportunity of students from poor families (Bolsa Escola). Remove all Roman numerals.
 DoneElizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Ministry of Education got the core elements of a national education policy profoundly right. What do you mean by "profoundly right"?
Removed, tried to put in more neutral wording...Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I think I got it fixed now.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the World Bank, there are three critical areas where national education policy has tracked with global best practice and implementation has been sustained and effective How is this relevant to the education policy of Brazil?
So, at the end of the article page, I want to include some sections on the impact of the policies. I tried to reword the LEDE to show that more clearly. But I will have to keep working on the LEDE, as I fill out the other sections.

Thanks for all your comments on the LEDE. It was very helpful!Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Constitutional rights to education: In this section, you might want to put the inline reference after The Federal Constitution outlines the education rights of Brazilian citizens in Title VIII, Chapter III, Section 1. instead of having it at the bottom of the list.
 DoneElizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: See also sections should never be in the middle of an article. They are to be placed before the References section. Links in the See also section must be internal links (links to Wikipedia articles). Put external links in the External links section.
Okay, moved it.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Education finance equalization policies: Again, never have external links in the middle of the article. If you want, format them as inline references. Note: A whole new page could be started on FUNDEF. Please remove this. All notes regarding the article should be made on the talk page and not in the article.
 Done, filled out the section and removed the links.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bolsa Familia: A sole main article note will not do in a section. You need to explain what Bolsa Familia is.
OKay, will work on it.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Assessment of Basic Education and the Proof of Brazil: The results of the SAEB and Proof of Brazil are distributed to the public of Brazil and anyone can view the results online. Please remove the external link in the results. A See also section should not come after a section. All see also links should be at the bottom of the article, just before the References section. Additionally, it should be an internal link and not an external link.
 Done. Thanks for the tips and education. I am still getting all the norms of Wikipedia and really appreciate the help.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bejinhan talks 12:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you working on the article! Wikistyle takes some getting used to but once you get the hang of editing, it'll be a breeze. And like what one other editor said here, Chzz is so good with Wikipedia stuff he usually doesn't ask for our help (instead, it's the opposite!) so since he asked for not one but a few people's help, this article must be pretty important to him. :) Bejinhan talks 02:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CycloneGU's Observations

[edit]

I will reference each main section; subsections are covered under the main section.

Constitutional rights to education

  • As noted above by the prior commenter, I was confused by the missing citation on each line. I wonder if the citation could go on the first line, and not be used for every single line? Something like, "The Federal Constitution outlines the following educational rights of Brazilian citizens in Title VIII, Chapter III, Section 1." with the reference on this line, then the list. That might be better than linking the reference on every line and makes it clear that the entire list uses the citation.
 Done :)Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also; merge with the one at the bottom of the article, but even more preferably if there is information in them relevant to the section, talk about it and use it as an inline citation instead. I'll get more into this below, but the main thing is move this section to the bottom.
 Done :)Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education finance equalization policies

  • Very minimal article information and three external links. Glean what information you can from them for your own writing and use them as references. Otherwise section can be cleared.
Almost done :) I think I will want to find a few more references later if I can.Elizabetsyatbu (talk)

Conditional cash transfer policies

  • As noted above, linking just to a main article is pointless. I think artist articles do it for discographies, but that is a rare exception where this type of thing is passable. You can still link, but put some relevant information in here or just remove the section.
What is an "artist article" and a "discography"? :? Can you help me understand this comment? Thanks.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's slightly off topic. Look up any popular music artist, such as Kenny Rogers, Katy Perry, and others. There is a section marked "Discography" that refers to a discography page - i.e. Kenny Rogers discography and so on. Off-topic as far as this article goes. =) CycloneGU (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Learn something new everyday :) Thanks for the education, both on how to improve my Wikipedia article and on discographies. =)Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Educational measurement and performance

  • PISA learning outcomes has no text.
  • OECD has no text.

Workforce Readiness

  • Empty section. Can only presume you are working to add this; otherwise, remove the section.
Slowly but surely, hoping to make a big push this weekend.Elizabetsyatbu (talk)

See also

  • This is about as big as the references section below it. I agree with making external links a separate section here, but if possible, avoid an external links section by simply referring to information from the page in its appropriate section and using an inline citation if at all possible. If all of them can be used, "External Links" will not be necessary ("See also" however works with internal article links).
So, is the suggestion to separate the internal and external links?Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta. Those that can't be used as a proper citation (say a chart or something, there are other examples) can be kept under "See Also". Anything within Wikipedia should be in there and not a citation. CycloneGU (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this helps. =) CycloneGU (talk) 13:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

VERY helpful! Thank-you so very much!!!!Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks for all of your help. You're comments and willingness to review my page have definitely helped make this a more interesting and enjoyable experience. I am trying to make my last push on the article this coming weekend. Any additional thoughts are welcome and appreciated. :) Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Elizabetsyatbu!!! [:-O from Cliff Knickerbocker

[edit]

Hello there, Elizabetsyatbu! I understand you are the University mentee of my Wikifriend Chzz. I wanted to make sure to properly WELCOME you to Wikipedia, a great place to "hang out" and to contribute to something really big! My name is Cliff Knickerbocker, and I go by the User name "Uploadvirus" here. Want to know more about me, my User Page is here. Feel free to leave me a message on my Talk Page if you wish. I'm also on Facebook, and I hope you'll add me as a Facebook Friend too.

Listen closely and I will tell you a secret - Chzz is VERY hard working and the kind of Wikipedian who NEVER asks ANYONE for help unless its ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL to him. However, he DID ask me if I'd consider helping you out if I could. That fact tells me he takes you, and your success, VERY seriously :-)

OK, my new friend, here's the deal => I specialize in medicine stuff, particularly cancer research, and I'm pretty knowledgeable therein. However, I know little-to-nothing about your chosen area, and really don't even have much knowledge and experience here at Wikipedia. Therefore, I'm going to limit my "help" to copyediting and maybe some general suggestions. That said, I'd encourage you to remember three (3) things. First, HAVE FUN! Wikipedia is not just about "work", it's also about making a tremendous difference and good entertainment! Second, BE BOLD - this concept is one of Wikipedia's most fundamental instructions, AND it's one of the MOST IMPORTANT THINGS YOU CAN DO IN YOUR WHOLE LIFE! Lastly, if you find yourself worried, or with a problem, DO NOT HESITATE to ask me or others here (especially Chzz), because everyone who has talked to you is serious about helping people, and Chzz takes hjis work and his students EXTREMELY seriously :-)

OK, Elizabetsyatbu, I see you already have a LOT of comments, so let me see what I think too! I will be back! *smile*

With very best regards:

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks so much. I am working on it now, trying to pull together research and rework it. Don't look at the LEDE section, it's still a mess. :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabetsyatbu (talk • contribs) 23:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My76Strat review

[edit]

I have also volunteered to provide some feedback based upon a review of this article. First I like to acknowledge that your efforts and diligence are apparent. These are a few areas which can be easily and quickly improved to reach an even better example.

  • A very simple consideration is always internal consistency within an article. This simply means when you establish a preference to do a thing one way, remain consistent throughout the article. For example this sentence: ...have given considerable importance to basic education policies[1]. shows the reference before the period. This example: efficiency of OECD and other middle-income countries.[2] is inconsistent with that style.
okay, i found it in the manual and will try to pick one and be consistent.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here: Brazil is far from average learning levels, secondary completion rates and student flow efficiency... you show a desire to omit the serial comma. Here: The aim of education is defined as the full development of a person, qualification for work, and participation as a citizen. you show positive use, an inconsistency. See this guideline for more information.
Wow that page is long... I found the thing on commas though, and I will give it a look. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This end statement: Education results measurement[2]" shows a closed quotation but the opening of the quote is not identified.
I think it got fixed, at least I can't find it now. Tell me if I am still missing it.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The capitalization of you section headers does not follow the manual of style. See this guideline for more information.
Done. Thanks! Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (_world.pdf Achieving World Class Education in Brazil: The Next Agenda) This is shown as a dead link.
Fixed.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is an orphan and needs at least three other articles to link to it.
  • Many references which are reused need to be named and then used as a named references. This can provide insight to nameing references and notes.
Thanks, I think this has been worked out. Though I am always on the look out for additional references.
  • The rest is minor clean up like extra spacing or underscores where they are not necessary. We can clean it up later, but do try to address some of these suggestions to bring the quality up so we can assess the article fairly. Good luck, and nice work so far. My76Strat (talk) 02:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks these are super helpful. I will keep working on them.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for all of the help. I think I have tried to address most of the comments. I am hoping to make another big push on this by the end of this weekend, and take down the construction sign, though of course an article is always under construction. If you have an further comments, please let me know.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SBaker43 Observations

[edit]

I'm not a mentor--that means you prioritize this behind mentor comments--or ignore me. :-) I saw a reference to your article on a talk page Saturday. What a tremendous change; it's coming along very well. You may be working on these items already; sorry if I note something that's already on your list. Some of the questions below may not be answerable yet. I ask them because they seem to relate to the topic, not to imply that you need to create an answer if there isn't one available yet.

All comments are welcomed. It is way more exciting to work on this article with people commenting :)Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the word "downtrodden" what you intended in the lead section?

No, deleted... not NPOV, slipped in from the research. Thanks for catching it.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a link to Conditional Cash Transfer in your section.

 Done :) Thanks for the Wikilink suggestions... there is so much out there, it's a bit overwhelming.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in believing that FUNDEF/FUNDEB distribution policies were to fund school districts and schools themselves whereas CCTs are to motivate/reward family behavioral changes by direct family payments? Consider adding an explanation to differentiate the two section discussions.

This is a wonderful challenging question. Yah, i will have to dig to make sure i can give a clear explanation of the distinction. I'm dreaming of having a little intro in each main section to make it really clear :PElizabetsyatbu (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After more thinking, that is a good distinction... i will try to put in a little more clarification at the beginning of each section about the definition/purpose. Please let me know if my attempt is successful or you have other thoughts. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of potential out-going links: Presidents Cardoso and Silva; internal regions -- Brasilia, São Paulo (state), and Campinas; Congress; INEP; IBGE, UNICEF.

I got a couple of these added. Let me know if you have suggestions for others. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see an explanation or links to explain "MEC"; is it related to INEP? I don't find links for FUNDESCOLA or PAR; could you provide their names and a brief explanation.

 Done, Ministry of Education and its assessment arm. Um... will try to make sure Fundescola and Par are also covered.... I have to work on the new developments section still, and maybe will remove the Fundescola/par acronyms...

Given the problems identified in Educational Performance and Outcomes, have CCTs produced changes to improve outcomes? Are there factors other than CCTs and FUNDEF/FUNDEB that have differentiated variations in Outcomes in different states/regions?

I am trying to include data on this, but I think the evidence will be continually growing. Hopefully, I will find some more resources...Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What a great article to be an example of Education policy articles for other countries. You should add some text with a link or a See also link to this article from Education policy (Done).SBaker43 (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thank-you! I was a little worried I bit off more than I could chew, but it is starting to come together. I will get back to some of your other comments soon. I really appreciate them!Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 07:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Wisconsin

[edit]

I'm afraid I can' be of much help since the subject matter is far from my areas of expertise. I did note that "OECD" seems not to be defined and there are two such sections needing filling in.

With regard to a reference being used twice (if that is what you question was), for the first occurrence of the reference the form is <ref name="Something 1955">"Now the actual reference"</ref> for the first occurrence of that reference. The "something" can be any word, perhaps the name of the author.

Then, the second time you want to invoke that reference the form is <ref name="Something"/>. Thus the second (or further) usage of that reference is taken from the first definition.

I hope I haven't made an error here, but it seems what I have on my pc and the mode of inserting a reference to be used more than once.

Best wishes,

Hez (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've erased my comment and simply "nowiki"ed the examples above. CycloneGU (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hez for the feedback. I got OECD linked, found the Wiki page. And appreciate the ref info. It has taken a bit to get used to citing that way, but with everyone's help I am getting there. And thanks for taking the time to look over my page. I am hoping to make the last push in major construction by the end of this weekend, though of course an article is never done... :)

Questions on References

[edit]

How do you collapse references in the reference section when you have the same reference listed multiple times? Someone else did the collapsing of the ones that are collapsed but every time I do it, it lists the ref repeatedly.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text with a second reference in the FUNDEB section which looks like:
gradually implanted.<ref>{{cite web|title=Federal Public Service: External Disclosure for EDITORA SARAIVA|url=http://www.saraivari.com.br/eng/download/IAN/IAN_2007.pdf|date=31|month=December|year=2007}}</ref>  FUNDEB was formed by allocating 20% of resources from state and federal taxes, as distributed among each State and Municipalities thereof, in proportion to the number of students of the several degrees and modalities of basic education, as enrolled with the relevant public education networks.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Federal Public Service: External Disclosure for EDITORA SARAIVA
|url=http://www.saraivari.com.br/eng/download/IAN/IAN_2007.pdf
|date=31|month=December|year=2007}}</ref>  The proposal entailed
should include a unique name= element in each <ref> like: 
gradually implanted.<ref name=FPS_SARAIVA>{{cite web|title=Federal Public Service: External Disclosure for EDITORA SARAIVA|url=http://www.saraivari.com.br/eng/download/IAN/IAN_2007.pdf|date=31|month=December|year=2007}}</ref>  FUNDEB was formed by allocating 20% of resources from state and federal taxes, as distributed among each State and Municipalities thereof, in proportion to the number of students of the several degrees and modalities of basic education, as enrolled with the relevant public education networks.<ref name=FPS_SARAIVA></ref>  The proposal entailed
to combine multiple cites into one Reference entry. Assuming I did all the code correctly.  :-)
I have found Template Filling] helpful to quickly create references for URLs and perhaps other sources.
You may also need to use {{rp}} to add a superscripted page number to the in-line cite for paged documents, e.g. PDFs. See Template:rp which also shows a second cite in it's example.
Hope this helps.SBaker43 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, very much. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabetsyatbu (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments from Lisaseventyfive

[edit]

Hi there, I got asked by Chzz to give you a bit of feedback on your article. Much of it may be covered by other people but I'll throw in whatever I noticed and you can discount any bits that are already covered by other people... Firstly, I should tell you that I know nothing about the topic you are writing about but then, sometimes it helps to get feedback from a reader who's totally ignorant of your topic - seeing as your purpose is to enlighten me! Also, I know you are doing lots of work on this and it's coming on really well - so, keep at it and good luck!

Lead Section:

-'Cardoso government'? Who is Cardoso - can you give a link on wiki or provide a bit more detail in the text?

Touche... I think he is correctly linked, explained now... Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-'Brazil is far from average learning levels' Do you mean Brazil has far from average learning outcomes.... or, Brazil is far below average learning outcomes as defined by..... I wasn't too clear - maybe the sentence could be restructured? Also, 'downtrodden'? Maybe some phrases like low-income/high unemployment/economically inactive... might be easier to classify?

again, thanks. starting to get the hang of NPOV. :) Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section: National Assessment and Proof of Brazil

- The Results of SAEB and Proof of Brazil are provided as an external link from within the text and also provided as the citation. I think wiki prefer you to avoid external links from within the main body of the text - and as the citation takes you to the same place, I'd just stick with the citation and get rid of the external link.

Good to know. Thanks. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Educational Performance and Outcomes

Maybe it would be good to include something here about what the consequences are(economic and social) of the lower enrolment and lower completion rates in Brazil? That would help the reader understand why all the research and attempts to change these things are important....

Okay, so I tried to do a little more of this. I am not sure if you have more thoughts. This was a really good comment. I would love your thoughts on if this is more clear now. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section: Teacher Quality and Training

Just a tiny typo here - 'The Ministry of Education's has...' - just get rid of the 's

Someone changed it. :) I love Wiki. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully some of that helps or reinforces what others have already said - again, best of luck Lisaseventyfive (talk) 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for all of the comments. They have both improved the article and helped me learn about writing on Wikipedia. I really appreciate it. :)

Looking Good!

[edit]

Hey! I see you're doing well, and that got plenty of folks just PILING it on you - FIX THIS, CHANGE THAT - driving you NUTS! LOL!

When you get a chance, let me know (a) when your deadline is to finish, and (b) if you have less than 500 people at the end to help with the final copyediting. I'm pretty darned good at doing OTHER peoples stuff, but of course, STINK at doing my own!

Keep hammering at it!

Your Wikifriend: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(a) my deadline to "finish" the article is this weekend, because i have to present on it in my class next Tuesday.
(b) i don't think there are 500, but there have been quite a few, which is great. copyediting is particularly helpful though, since i don't know all the manual stuff all that well yet. anything you see to help it be more NPOV or consistent per the manual is fabulously helpful.
(c) thanks for the encouragement :) it's made this a lot more fun. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Anyone a pro on linking to pages in other languages? if it is advised? how to best do it? There are a couple of pages in Portuguese which are related like Brasil.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 03:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a expert and I'm not clear about question. Do you mean an External link or Reference to a Portuguese language page or do you mean a link to the Portuguese language Wikipedia?
A link to a different language Wikipedia would be My hope page (in German) or Germany (in Deutsch). 
[[:de:Deutschland|Germany (in Deutsch)]]
See ILLs and Other sections.
For links to a foreign language site, include an English title if feasible and "Portuguese" in parenthesis.
For references, look at Bibliographic entries at Brasil.
If this isn't helpful, try to chat at IRC. SBaker43 (talk) 06:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For a language link to another article, you just put the 2-letter language code of the wiki, and the article name. Those go at the very end of the article (after external links) - and they make a link appear in the left, under 'languages'. For example, if you look in the last bit of the article on sausages here, you'll see all this stuff;
[[ar:سجق]]
[[bg:Наденица]]
[[cs:Párek]]
[[da:Pølse]]
[[de:Wurst]]
...etc...
  • Now - what that means is, if - right here - I put e.g. [[de:Wurst]] - it would not make a link within my text; instead, it would make a link in the left-hand pane under 'languages'. To make a link, you put a colon before it - e.g. [[:de:Wurst]] - and then it works, like so: de:Wurst
  • Of course, you can 'pipe' those too; for example, [[:de:Wurst|German sausages]] makes: German sausages
  • So - you can use that in the article. But don't overuse them, because readers shouldn't be expected to be able to read another language. And even if we don't have an article, but pt does, consider formatting it like e.g.
The [[Parque Zoológico de São Paulo]] is a zoo in Brazil (see [[:pt:Parque Zoológico de São Paulo|Portuguese Wikipedia article]]).

...which looks like...

The Parque Zoológico de São Paulo is a zoo in Brazil (see Portuguese Wikipedia article).

...ie, red links can be useful to demonstrate a needed article. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  08:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks @Sbaker43 & Chzz for the information. I will think carefully whether there are a couple appropriate Portuguese pages that make sense to include.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

"Cardoso government" should be removed. Timeline established in another way. Cardoso is personalized, and appears subjective and pov. Okay for a dictatorship maybe, where responsibility can only be fixed in one person.

"According to the World Bank, these national education policies have tracked with global best practice and implementation has been sustained and effective in improving performance and outcomes of education in Brazil" Sentence is too long, for starters. "national policies have been tracked with global best practice" is an awkward sentence in English. Style not quite right. How about "The World Bank has stated that Brazil's education policies are among the best in the world." (Sounds nuts to me BTW and I wouldn't have the sentence at all considering what comes next)

"Brazil is far from average learning levels". this is pov and unnecessarily negative. It should suffice to say that "Brazil scores below average nations in educational achievement... (or whatever)" The "far from average" phrase is too negative and subjective IMO.

"downtrodden areas" - this phrase is pov and out of place here. You need a less subjective phrase to identify areas that are well-below standard. "Children living in poverty ...." for example. "Students living in poverty.."

"Constitutional rights" subsection. This sounds a bit pedantic. Nice to have article numbers. Maybe shouldn't be in text. Footnotes maybe? Should probably be summarized somehow. Footnote it with article. Having said that, it would be better to use a secondary source here if available. It might not be in English. In other words, the editor is quoting the Constitution directly. Using it as a primary source. Normally this gets interpreted by the courts which young children aren't taught, so the actual rights are somewhat different that what is worded literally.

It is frustrating doing this indirectly. I'm exhausted! Student7 (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)  Doing...[reply]

Thanks for the comments, particularly on NPOV. I am just getting the hang of all the Wiki Manual stuff, so having someone point it out teaches me a lot. I will continue to try to update the phrases you called out, some are challenging and I will have to think about how to improve them. Please let me know if you see others. And also feel free to edit directly. I know it can be easier to just do, than to teach, and I welcome both.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DeltaQuad

[edit]
  • Lead: I see that the lead is off to a good start, more references in there would be nice, but I know it can be hard to find them sometimes.  Doing...
  • Section 2: If you are going to quote something, I'd use one of the quotation templates and make it completely clear what you are quoting. You should also have a general summary of your own instead of letting the quote do all the work for the section.
  • Section 3: "FUNDEF (1996–2006) and FUNDEB (2006–present)" --> "FUNDEF (1996–2006) which was (renamed/refounded/whichever is applicable) (to/by) FUNDEB (2006–present)". This seciton has a lot of 3rd party data, but I think there could be more sources out there to cover the third party data.
  • Section 4: Should explain CCTs more in the lead. "After these successful local CCT experiences in the mid 1990s", is the bolded word neutral?. "...Latin America" (which) "is..." --> "...Latin America [which] is..."
  • Section 5: "due to a desire for more detail beyond that included in the SAEB" Source/Reference? "[clarification needed]" does need clarifiaciton.
  • Section 6: Original Research by Bank? Can you back it up? "The gap in math skills between the average student in Shanghai and the average Brazilian student is approximately 5 school years". Source/Reference? "in 1993 secondary education was often attained only when students came from parents who had attained secondary education"; Often is also a subjective word, might want to add a more objective word. WP:NPOV? "Non-attendance in schools is still a concern in parts of the country." Of who?
  • Section 7: References and general expansion needed.  Doing...
  • Good start guys, let me know if you have questions. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks DeltaQuad! I will try to look through these and address them. As I fix things, the comments keep getting harder and harder to fix :P But that's good, hopefully that means the article is getting better.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! Wow!

[edit]

This article has seriously grown since I last looked at it - and what a fine article it's turning out to be! Congratulations, you're doing incredibly well; you have a right to be seriously proud of yourself. :o) Pesky (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Additional References

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Education policy in Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Education_policy_in_Brazil&oldid=1196449789"