User talk:SabreenAbd
| This user is a student editor in University_of_California,_Berkeley/African_Politics_(Spring_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, SabreenAbd, 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) 17:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Rosemary Yin's Peer Review
[edit]Lead: did not see a lead.
Structure: I think the topic of the article is Corruption in Egypt. For me, I felt like the "Extent of Corruption" section makes more sense towards the end - after giving an introduction to causes of corruption, forms of corruption and the sectors of corruption. It could also be merged with the "Sectors of corruption" section, by talking about each sector's forms of corruption as well as the extent of that corruption. Other than that, the structure looks good!
Balance: Out of the two sections filled out so far (extent of corruption and petty corruption), it seems to be a nice balance. It makes sense that one section on a specific form of corruption is slightly shorter than the section on "extent of corruption".
Neutral content: Some of the adjectives were not neutral. For example: "Moreover, in regards to corruption impacting the Egyptian economy, this was emphasized by the 2015 Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom in that “freedom from corruption” was the area in which Egypt received its poorest score" could be edited to remove the "this was emphasized" statement, and instead replaced with "Moreover, in regards to corruption impacting the Egyptian economy, the 2015 Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom reported that “freedom from corruption” was the area in which Egypt received its poorest score". The article also used non-neutral adjectives such as "pervasive".
Sources: There are three sources and all of them are from official reports without a clear bias. I think that adding sources from academic journals could also bring more depth to the article.
Rosemary yin (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Draft in sandbox
[edit]Hi Sabreen,
I moved your article draft to your sandbox rather than on your user page. I reverted your user page back to its original state. Check your sandbox (there should be a link at the top right of your screen that says "Sandbox" next to "Talk" where you should be able to find it.
Let me know if you have any questions
Rsfisher (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Leo Melton's Peer Review
[edit]Lead: doesn't look like there is a lead. The "Extent of Corruption" section could be turned into a lead.
Structure: I don't think that the "Extent of Corruption" section is necessary, and the information contained there could be split into other sections. I like the split between Grand Corruption and Petty Corruption.
Balance: There is a nice balance of content in the sections of this article that have been filled out. Every section is fairly robust.
Neutral Content: Overall good, it has a neutral tone throughout the article.
Sources: Good use of sources. Of the 6, only one is from a newspaper, and there are good sources from academic journals and NGO's.
Mordian (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)