User talk:Shannon.chensee/sandbox

Peer Review Evan Thomas:

Overall, this is a very strong draft and I think it will provide positive additions to the existing article.

Specific Comments

I like how you plan to change the existing opening sentence, to separate clientelism from political clientelism, which are not necessarily the same.

Your assertion that “earlier literature on clientelism rested on the assumption that economic development and democratization would lead to lower levels of clientelism and its eventual disappearance” should have at least one citation.

You mention that this assumption has been disproved, as “clientelism persists in a variety of political and economic contexts.” You mention Greece, Italy and Spain as specific examples of Western democracies, and adding different examples across a range of different contexts would complement these well.

You should consider whether political machines targeting poorer voters necessarily indicates that economic development and clientelism are related. Consider the case of political machines buying the votes of the poor in Chicago, in a rich country. You should provide further evidence beyond vote buying if you are going to suggest that there may be a relationship between economic development and clientelism.

Your section on democracy is unfinished, but I’m sure that you’re aware.

Perhaps consider renaming the next heading “political competition” as competition can have a wide range of meanings, and it just makes it more clear. The Vote and Turnout Buying section may be better if it’s included above the Related Factors section. The reason for this is you discuss vote buying in the Related Factors section, but you don’t define it until the Vote and Turnout Buying section.

Citations

All of the links in your citations work well. Your sources are very strong too, nice use of academic pieces for research.

All of your sources seem to be up to date, and they are all seemingly reliable references from neutral sources. Your citations all support the specific claim which you are trying to make. Your article has a neutral bias too, which is good. Evleigh (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review:

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The section defining the term is well developed and clearly explains the meaning of the term. When you are explaining the relationship between economic development and clientelism, you can add more to explain it. Moreover, when you mention, the assumption has been disapproved, maybe give some example of a specific case study to explain it. In the section, diminishing marginal utility of income, the author needs to add more. It’s not quite easy to understand. The section on risk aversion is well written. An example is also incorporated to further explain the theory. The section on democracy isn’t complete. Clearly, more stuff needs to be uploaded. The link between clientelism and competition is explained well with a comparison between candidate-focused elections to politicized bureaucracies.

- Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? The article is neutral and is not biased. The article illustrates the concept of clientelism and how it is linked with development and democratization. However, I would recommend, adding some parts on how more development or democratization resulted in less clientelism (if it did). - Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? The section explaining the relationship between clientelism and democracy needs more information and examples. The section on economic development borrows a lot from theoretical concepts, however, more specific case studies can be added to make the article more informative. - Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? I checked most of the citations and the links work well. It directs to the page it was taken from. The source does support the claim. I think the author needs to work on the first citation, it’s not properly done. - Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted? Most of the facts come from articles by other scholars. - Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? The information presented is not out of the date but as mentioned above, more information and examples need to be added. However, good job with the article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudaimran (talk • contribs) 05:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Balan Review

Overall, this is shaping up well. Of course, there is more work to do on the different sections,a nd you should include more sources, given how much work there is out there on clientelism. Check out a book by Stokes, Brusco, Dunning and others on clientelism, it will prove quite useful. You may also want to add something that accounts for the view of clientelism from the client's point of view, a la Auyero. Good work so far, keep it coming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]