User talk:Muffin110

This user is a student editor in UCSD/IPE_Money_and_Finance_IMF_WB_(Fall_2019) .

This user is a student editor in University_of_California_at_San_Diego/Jews_and_African_Americans_-_Slavery,_Diaspora,_Ghetto_(Fall_2018) .

Welcome!

Hello, Muffin110, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hello again Shalor. Thank you for getting back to me, those tool were very helpful! I am working on adding facts about Ambar's early life that have not been sourced, as well as omitted. And I am also looking to add more information about his career that has been omitted and poorly sourced. If my facts are supported by three different sources is it likely to be accepted as the "Wikipedia Truth"? Thanks again for your help! Muffin110 (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muffin110! With "Wikipedia truth" it can often depend on what the fact is and how it's represented in the sources. For example, if the three sources were saying something along the lines of "Ambar was born in the spring of XXXX" or other information that they're all stating as the most commonly held consensus, then it should be OK. It's generally only when it's something that isn't the common opinion that you need to add some sort of disclaimer or attribution. What you have in your sandbox (While little information is known Ambar's primary years, it is documented he was originally from the Kambata region of Ethiopia, and likely called by the name Chapu) is good. A good example of how to approach people whose past is a bit murky due to a lack of hard documentation are the articles I did a while back for Catherine Kaidyee Blaikley and Aaron Commodore. There isn't a lot of information out there that is concretely known about some portions of their lives, so I had to kind of put in a disclaimer where necessary. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Hi! Here are my notes:

The early life section is written as very choppy and is more of a list of facts as opposed to it being written in prose. This needs to be fixed.
The career section is written in the form of a reflective piece and needs to be re-written. I'd re-write it along these lines:

Richard Eaton has argued that the type of slavery that Malik Ambar could be better classified as indentured servitude, as this type of slavery offered roles and opportunities for social mobility that chattel slavery does not. Building on this classification, Eaton further argues that it would be acceptable to say that his career began the moment he was sold into the Arab slave trade.

This attributes the claim to the specific person, which is important with anything that could be seen as a major claim or controversial.

Much of the sourcing looks to be about money as opposed to Ambar - the sourcing should go into some depth or be entirely about Ambar to be used, otherwise it can be seen as original research.

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Zoé Ricci/Côte d'Ivoire and the International Monetary Fund

Background: In the background section try to remain more neutral, explaining the specific events, not as a narrator. Also try to break up the longer sentences into condensed sentences with the same good information.Muffin110 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1980s": The beginning portion of this section is a bit wordy, I think you could say the same great information while adjusting the structure to be more concise. I love the ending, very succinct and neutral. My only recommendation here is that you use the farmer riots as its own sentence because I think it sounds more clear that way.Muffin110 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broader Effects: Beautiful section. Maybe add the word children after "15,000"? This was great though. Do you have the metrics on the severity of the Brain Drain? Might be good to give exact numbers.Muffin110 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current Economy: Maybe outline some of the structural and economic reforms that took place briefly or even just by category. Likewise, how are the individual goals going to be realized in the future? Another really great section that was informative and concise.Muffin110 (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response 12/11

Hi! I saw your message - with the sandbox, if you hadn't selected the publish edits button, then unfortunately there won't be a way to retrieve the edits. The only way to prevent this in the future is to periodically save your sandbox work, although I know that this advice is coming a day late and a dollar short. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]