Wikipedia:Peer review/Barbuda/archive1

Barbuda

I've listed this article for peer review as a few editors and I have made significant improvements and additions to the article. The most concerning sections are economy and demographics.

Thanks, CROIX^talk 18:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Fritzmann2002

Morning CROIX, I'll get started on this and will have a review by the end of the day. If any of the comments need further explanation please let me know. Fritzmann (message me) 15:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• What is "on autonomous cultivation on communal property"? Is it some form of tenant farming?
• "Cutting blades from the enormous gastropods that the Ciboney gathered", perhaps re-arranging this clause would make it easier to read
• Link gastropods, conch, trumpet, whelk the first time they are mentioned
• Same thing for all of the ethnic groups
• Is there a reference for the last sentence of the first paragraph of the pre-Colonial section? Also, are there any clues for what happened to the Ciboney?
• Do we know when the Arawak first arrived? Did they overlap with the Ciboney?
• The sentence that starts "sweet potatoes" is very passive, should start with "The Arawak grew [all those things]"
• Telling me Indian Town is close to Two Foot Bay is not very helpful
• Who are the Kalinago? They are just name-dropped in that third paragraph
• The sentence about the early 1700s raids seems out of place
• Okay I'm just going to lump it all here so I don't sound like a broken record, but make sure to link anything obscure (even if you don't think it is obscure) the first time it is mentioned. I, as a lay reader, don't know what the Letters Patent are, who the Earl of Carlisle in 1625 was, or which Captain Smith this is referring to.
• "In 1678, Barbuda was colonized" how? This seems very brief.
• "but this never went through" is colloquial, formalize the language
• "(known as "afro heroes")" by whom? Also, the reference here seems very suspect... I would advise against using it
• Britannica is a tertiary source, which is OK to use but it would be better if there were secondary sources that could cover the same information
• The last two paragraphs in the colonial period section are still unreferenced, and the annexation of Barbuda by Antigua seems like a very important event that should be expanded upon
• Whoa boy the politics and government section is rough. That... probably needs a complete rewrite. The second paragraph especially is just not really what a wikipedia article is for.
• The demographics section is also looking like it needs a re-do. It is pretty much all statistics, which is just too granular. It should cover broad themes; the actual demographic statistics can be housed in the sub-articles like Housing in Barbuda
• Same comment on the economy section.

I am going to leave the review there. This article still needs a lot of work that goes deeper than the limits of a Peer Review. Several sections need a rewrite, there are quite a few reference issues, and it needs link and wikification improvement throughout. There is also some close paraphrasing issues that I found with a quick look at Earwig, and it looks like the second paragraph of the government section has a few chunks of copied content. I hope this gives a decent direction to go in for future improvements. Very Respectfully, Fritzmann (message me) 15:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I am happy to help with revisions. I can help with references, since I just recently got Wikipedia Library access :-) Many of the references in the article seem to be personal websites rather than reliable sources. I can also help with adding wikilinks. CareAhLine (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments by CMD

• "The sole settlements on the island..." It should be "sole settlement", or "only settlements" or some similar variation.
• Incongruous to describe it as a "flat island" when part of it is "dominated by...highlands".
• The lead should not cover information not in the body, this often shows up with sources. For example, the abolition of slavery sources are used only in the lead. Checking the body, the info is there but it is unsourced! The sources should be moved into the body.
• "Because the entire island had been covered by a single land grant, the Barbudans kept on autonomous cultivation on communal property after slavery's abolition." This sentence is not that accessible, phrases like "land grant" and "autonomous cultivation on communal property" cannot be understood without prior knowledge. The lead especially should be accessible to those very unfamiliar with the topic. (I see Fritzmann2002 has mentioned this specific and general point above in detail, I agree with their suggestions.)
• Is the hurricane Irma info due in the lead? It seems like a bit of trivia.
• In turn, small coverage of Demographics and Culture should be in the lead given they are major sections in the article.
• The seal, motto, and anthems being included in the infobox is confusing as they apply to Antigua and Barbuda as a whole, not just Barbuda. (As opposed to the flag, which is Barbuda-specific.) This also applies to the internet tld.
• The infobox map should have a descriptive caption.
• "Annexation" in the infobox should specific "to Antigua" or similar, to improve accessibility.
• Fritzmann2002 has touched on the colonization history above, I would also note "by 1666 the village of Codrington had become the primary residential area" doesn't make sense given the rest of the text said that 1) the earlier attempt failed 2) it was only colonized at a later date.
• "The slave population in Barbuda grew naturally from 172 in 1746 to 503 in 1831. Due to the increase in the slave population, to increase profits, the Codringtons attempted to transfer some of slaves to Antigua, which was ultimately unsuccessful." This should be rewritten, "grew naturally" is not a term I understand and probably isn't formal, and it is unclear how a transfer can be "ultimately unsuccessful".
• When were slaves first brought to the island (in numbers)?
• Huge jump from the abolition of slavery to the 21st century, it feels like a lot is missing here.
• This article should not explain Antiguan and Barbudan politics, but should focus on the Barbudan contribution. General information about the monarchy and parliament should be cut, the special provisions should be expanded, and the method of selection for the 1+2 Barbudan representatives should be explained.
• The politics section should have a comprehensive overview of the Barbudan system of communal land ownership, as well as the provisions of Barbudan autonomy.
• There should also be more information about local politics: significant local issues and local political parties.
• The Geography section seems to go straight into specific issues, eg. a specific hurricane and specific species, without giving the wider picture.
• The Darby Cave section reads as its own little stub, if better sources can be found I'd spin that off into its own article.
• Personally I don't mind the granular statistics in Demographics and the Economy, I'd leave them in but both could certainly use a more general overview to provide context to understand the statistics. (Possibly a similar point to the one on getting immediately specific in Geography.)
• Similarly, there should be a general overview of Barbudan culture before diving into specifics about festivals, sports, and cuisine.

In general, the article should consider the non-specialist audience, who may not know the terminology involved or how to interpret the various statistics. I agree with the above comments on sources, in particular Barbudaful seems to be used a lot despite not feeling that solid a source. Best, CMD (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)