User talk:Joshsminer
| This user is a student editor in UC_Berkeley/Global_Poverty_and_Practice_(Fall_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Joshsminer, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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) 16:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Madeleine's peer review
[edit]Area - Poverty in China (adding section: Rural Poverty)
[edit]I really like how it felt like each and every sentence you used was extremely valuable to the content of the article and had a specific purpose; nothing felt like it was just thrown in as "fluff." Lots of information was given in a few paragraphs, which is great because nothing felt unnecessary! You also did a good job being objective, despite the rather subjective nature of this kind of topic. Poverty can be difficult to address in a neutral manner, but I felt that this section gave the basic details without pushing the reader to feel a certain way. The structure was very clear in that it flowed from the first paragraph that gave a general overview to poverty in rural China, the second focused on children and educational opportunities (or the lack thereof) in rural China, and the third addressed urbanization and the country's policies toward that. My only suggestions in moving forward perhaps are to dive even further into the specific contributing factors to that poverty in rural China and give more information and context. That way, you could give each arm of poverty its own section (for example, "education" and "policies" or something like that) and really give yourself room to elaborate on the details. I was a little confused trying to access the links to your different sources, but the one source I was able to look at (number 9) seemed very useful and relevant. :)
Sector - Sustainable Agriculture (geographic barriers section)
[edit]Again, I really appreciate how each sentence is extremely necessary and there aren't any that feel like they don't add value to the section (because they all do). The structure is very clear, but just a suggestion is to maybe put the sentence about Nunavik after the sentence "sustainable agriculture in regions..." so that you are describing it, and then giving an example rather than putting the example first and then stating the issue. To add, you give one specific example, but maybe adding further information about other different examples would broaden the description and definition of geographic barriers. In the solutions subsection, I really like how you refer to Nepal with its mountainous region and Mexico/Africa with their arid climates to give two opposing areas with the same struggle against a geographic barrier. As with the previous article, you do a great job staying neutral. I was only able to access one article link, but it seemed like a very relevant one!! My only other suggestion is to keep doing what you're doing:) It is very interesting and I would love to read more about it in depth.
Madeleinemoyer (talk) 05:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeleinemoyer (talk • contribs) 21:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)