Talk:Irrigation in Peru

Irrigation in Peru was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 25, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on February 13, 2008.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that, of the 2.6 million hectares of cultivated land in Peru, approximately 1.7 million hectares have an irrigation infrastructure (example pictured) but only 1.2 million hectares are actually irrigated?

Peru Mid‑importance

This article is supported by WikiProject Peru. This project provides a central approach to Peru-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.PeruWikipedia:WikiProject PeruTemplate:WikiProject PeruPeru articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Peru To-do:

Assess and prioritise articles (log)
Check for copyvios at Special:Contributions/Priscilla D, tag as {{Db-copyvio}} where appropriate
Create:
Expand: new articles; top importance articles
FAC / FLC: Peru national football team
GAN:
Merge requests: Amazonas before the Inca Empire, Chachapoyas culture
Review: Shining Path, Universitario de Deportes
Translate: National University of San Marcos
Work on Lima, the current article improvement drive
Wikify: articles needing attention

Agriculture Low‑importance

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Review

Please, review Irrigation in Peru and share your comments regarding editing, content and/or applications. Anunezsanchez (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add as an historic fact that the sharp decrease of the indigenous population following the events of the hispanic conquest (mainly due to the new diseases brought by the europeans) was a mayor contributor to the failure of the irrigation infrastructure, an analog process to what happened to mesopothamia after the mongolic and timurid conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.108.219 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page references

This is a well informed and heavily referenced article which are good things. However, it desperately needs page references. Wikipedia articles are required to be verifiable thus, readers should be able to compare the article with its sources. For that it is necessary to provide page references so that readers know in what part of books or pdf documents to look for. Also, as a minor suggestion, it might be a good idea to have the "References" section above the "Sources" section as this is the standard academic practice. --Victor12 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments before this article gets reviewed

This article is using a unique referencing system that I have never seen in a Wikipedia article before. Anyways, before this article gets reviewed, the references should all be placed after any punctuation marks per WP:FN. Gary King (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Victor12 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any specific reason why this referencing method is used? Also, I recommend adding references to paragraphs without one, just to show that all of the information is indeed referenced. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references to each paragraph. Also, Gary King, I use the Harvard Citation Style. I use it because is the citation method I normally use when writing papers. I like it because it allows you to see the name of the author in the main text. So after reading it, and before going into the references you already have a sense of who is the main author referenced in the text and/or who says what. But, again this citation method is just another option to choose from those allowed by Wikipedia.--anunezsanchez (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Scartol

Let me start by apologizing for only now reviewing this article. You've asked me for some time to have a look, and I feel bad that I'm only able to provide these comments while it's listed at GAN. Hopefully I'll be more of a help than a burden. =)

You've got some excellent info here, and it's well organized. You've obviously done a lot of work on this, and you are to be commended for your arduous labor. There are some things that need fixing, but I've no doubt you can remedy them without too many headaches.

Irrigation in Peru has been – and is expected to remain – a major contributor to increasing the country's food security, agricultural growth, and human development in rural areas. This sentence (the article's first) presents a problem which appears throughout the piece: the appearance of a particular point of view. The use of passive voice is chiefly to blame here: Who expects irrigation to remain a major contributor to improving these elements?

The second sentence is also problematic: Water resources and irrigation infrastructure are unequally distributed throughout the country, creating very different realities. While this may be a point most (or even all) people agree with, it's still an opinion. The word "unequally" and the phrase "very different realities" are heavy with inference – we should try something more fact-based, like "Water resources and irrigation infrastructure vary throughout the country."

Speaking of the lead, it should be a summary of the article as a whole; for a page of this length, I recommend 3-4 paragraphs, with short descriptions of each major section featured in the article body itself. If you haven't already, please read WP:LEAD. I usually write the lead at the end of the process, so I can more easily summarize its contents.

The article could stand some reorganization. I recommend moving "History of the irrigation sector" to the top of the article's body, since the page is meant to provide an overall view of the entire topic of irrigation in Peru. (Chronology is not the only way to approach such a thing, obviously, but in this case – and in most such articles, I've found – it's the best way.)

Other suggestions about the article's structure:

Let's rename "Government strategy on the irrigation sector" into "National Irrigation Strategy", and make it a sub-section of "Irrigation development".
How about combining "Environmental impacts of irrigation" and "Possible climate change impacts on irrigated agriculture" into subheads of a section titled something like "Environmental impacts and effects"?
I recommend making "Water tariff and cost recovery", "Investment and financing", and "External cooperation" into subheads of a section titled something like "Economics".
"Annex 1: Lessons learned from the Peruvian model" seems opinionated. I recommend incorporating the information here into the rest of the article. (For example, the paragraph which begins: "Part of the success comes from the Government and WUBs sharing investment responsibilities..." could go in the "Economics" section.) You'll also want to revise wording like "delivering positive results", which is vague and POV. Instead, focus only on facts: in this case, you can just jump to the bit about "combining financial support and capacity building with regularization of water rights".

If you agree with these structural changes, go ahead and make them (or let's discuss them), and then I'll be happy to have a closer look at the individual sections. Kudos again on all of your hard work here. – Scartol • Tok 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Irrigation in Peru/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this. I've worked on some MoS stuff, but I want to make sure all of the dash work and the non-breaking spaces are all in order. Also, there are a few things that still need work before it can pass. Below are some recommendations. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should probably be three paragraphs since the article is so long.
First sentence: expected by whom?
"creating very different realities" (from Lead). Is there another word that could be used instead of realities? picky picky ;)
In relevance, you say "Agriculture employs 30% of Peru's population..." Agriculture is a concept; it cannot pay people. Maybe consider changing your choice of words. again, picky picky... :)
Also in relevance, you write "High-value crops and irrigation technology have had a major impact on the Costa's rural development". Is that supposed to be Coast's? If it is, it shouldn't be capitalized.
The picture in Irrigation Infrastructure needs author information.
in Institutional Development you say "From 1945 to 1948, the Government approved a National Plan for Improving Irrigation". I the National Plan a specific agenda? if it is, then it should be in quotes or italics. if not, it shouldn't be capitalized. check capitalization in the whole article too.
same thing for "10-year National Irrigation Strategy" in Legal Framework
In Possible Climate Change, you need a second parenthesis in "The Andean Community (CAN estimates that climate change will cause US$30,000 million in losses or 4,5% of the GDP annually starting in 2025.(La Republica)"
Why is the last section entitled Annex 1?

Second Opinion Comments

Hello! I've taken a run through the article, and there are several things that I'd like to see changed before this article becomes GA.

External links are not supposed to be placed in the actual text of the article, as they are in the "Institutional framework" and "Possible climate change impacts on irrigated agriculture" sections. Instead, they should be incorporated into the references, or added to the external links section at the bottom of the article.
Many of the section and subsection titles are extremely long. Please try to shorten as many of them as you can. For example, "Farmers/organizations and on-farm water management" could probably be shortened to "Water management".
In the "Institutional framework" section, there should be no bolded words or acronyms.
Per MOS, images should be staggered left and right to improve article flow.
There are several areas where references are needed:
- In "Institutional development", the last sentences of the first, second and fourth paragraphs.
- In "Relevance of irrigation for agriculture and rural development", the last three sentences of the first paragraph.
- In "Irrigation infrastructure", the last sentences in the second and fourth paragraphs, and the entire fifth paragraph.
- In "Institutional framework", the last sentences of all three paragraphs.
- In "Farmers/organizations and on-farm water management", the last two sentences of the second paragraph.
- In "National irrigation strategy", the last two sentences of the second paragraph.
- In "Lessons learned from the Peruvian model", the first paragraph and the last two sentences of the last paragraph.
Non-breaking spaces (see Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Non-breaking spaces) should be added between numbers and units.
The lede (see WP:Lede) should be at least three solid paragraphs for an article this size.
There are many sections/subsections, including (but not limited to) "Agricultural land under irrigation/past and present trends", "Irrigation infrastructure" and "Legal framework", where there are many extremely short paragraphs. These little bits can be combined into larger paragraphs for easier reading and article flow.

Due to the number of things I have listed above, I have not done a complete review of the prose. Once the issues above are resolved, I will go back through the article and mention any qualms I have about grammar, sentence structure and the like. If you have questions, I can be contacted here on the review page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewers

Dear Reviewers, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article. I have incorporated most of your comments and will continue to do so in the next few days. I will give you the heads up when it is ready for a second round. Thank you very much --anunezsanchez (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening Titles

I took some time to read the article and the reviews, and here are some recommendations for the shortening of the titles. The symbol " -> " shows the recommended change and the words included in the parenthesis "()" give a reason to some of them:

Contents 1 History of the irrigation sector -> History (We know the article's history deals with the irrigation sector) 1.1 Agricultural land under irrigation/past and present trends -> Past and present irrigation trends 1.2 Institutional development 2 Relevance of irrigation for agriculture and rural development -> Relevance in development (We know it's irrigation and that it has to do with agriculture) 3 Irrigation development 3.1 Irrigation infrastructure 3.2 Linkages with water resources 3.3 Environmental impacts of irrigation 4 Legal and institutional framework 4.1 Legal framework 4.2 Institutional framework 4.3 Farmers/organizations and on-farm water management -> Organizations and water management 5 National irrigation strategy 6 Economics 6.1 Water tariff and cost recovery 6.2 Investment and financing 6.3 External cooperation 7 Possible climate change impacts on irrigated agriculture -> Possible climate change impacts 8 Lessons learned from the Peruvian model 9 See also 10 Cited References 11 External links 12 WikiProject Irrigation by Country

-MarshalN20 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

Sigh... I hate to do this, but since there has been no work on the article by the nominator since the 11th, I'm going to fail this (on the humble advice of Dana Boomer) and remove it from WP:GAN. Sorry. Feel free to renominate this when you're ready. <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

On my user talk page I received the following request:

I read on your user page that you worked in Peru and that you have worked on irrigation. I'd be interested to have you review, and perhaps edit, the article Irrigation in Peru. Looking forward to your comments.--Mschiffler (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see that that Wikipedia users try to involve each other in the continuous process of improving articles.
I have read the article and was highly impressed by it, especially by its contents, intentions and goals, and I have no immediate criticisms. I did not look into details like style, format, standards and norms, and other formal Wikipedia requirements for articles, as I found the article surveyable, readible and clear.
I lived with my family and worked in Peru in the nineteenseventies, a period characterised in the article as "a period of stagnation and limited development". Although it is hard to substantiate such type of characterizations and they verge on the limits of opiniation, I believe this. Since then, many activities were undertaken in this field that I could not follow anymore, but that I got aware of a few years ago during a conference on the subject in Lima.
My specific knowledge is in the field of waterlogging (called "drainage problems" in the article) and soil salination of irrigated lands, the side effects and environmental impacts of irrigation. As the conference provided me with fresh information, dear Mschiffler, I will consider to contribute with an extension in the section "Environmental impacts of irrigation".
The request for review has also a side effect: I will consider the write a new article on "Environmental impacts of irrigation" that does not yet exist. See Environmental degradation.
In addition, I have seen just now that the article on waterlogging leaves much to be desired. Hence, I intend to make a contribution here too.
Mschiffer, I am afraid your request for review is causing a chain reaction that will keep me busy for a while. Have you put others to work like this very often?
R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very glad that you like the article. I am glad that my comment has motivated you to contribute your knowledge on environmental impacts of irrigation to Wikipedia, both in a generic new article and by expanding the existing section in Irrigation in Peru. I am trying to energize more people to contribute their knowledge to Wikipedia, and hopefully you will be one of many!--Mschiffler (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section on environmental impacts has now been extended.R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Just one remark:The 1960 irrigated area is shown higher than the irrigable area in the table. Could that be a mistake?--Mschiffler (talk) 12:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For 1964 (rather than 1960) there is indeed an uncertainty. The table of de la Torre from which the data originate uses the term "area física cultivada", which I translated into "Irrigated area", which might be interpreted as "Actually irrigated area" or "Actually cultivated area inside the irrigable area". I have quoted the figures correctly. In the text of his article de la Torre explains that it concerns the "costa Peruana". I do not know what to do about what seemingly is a discrepancy. Any suggestion? R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added de la Torre as a reference for the table. R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sent the author a mail about the problem. Waiting for reply. R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply received. There can be double cropping in a year. Table adjusted. R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking this and for your entire contribution. The response makes sense.--Mschiffler (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental impact of irrigation is now ready. R.J.Oosterbaan (talk) 11:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Irrigation in Peru. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Irrigation in Peru. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]