Talk:Villagization (Ethiopia)
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
[edit]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lachlanbebout.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Janani's Peer Review
[edit]1. What does the article do well?
- The introduction covers all the important topics - it defines villagization, then provides an overview of the history, the response, and the results.
2. Where do I see room for improvement or further development? Why?'
- The flow could be improved so that readers are able to understand where the article is going next. For example, between the sentences "Villagization policy immediately followed..." and "Opponents of the Derg...", you can either break this into a new paragraph or add some flow words like: "In response to this policy."
- Some of the word choices could be improved so that it's easier for the readers to understand the content. For example, "immediately followed" could be changed to "occurred in response to" and "met villagization campaigns with..." could be changed to "resisted villagization campaigns."
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
- The order could be improved so that it flows better. The article currently starts with the definition, then says when the policy ended, then why it was important, then what it was modeled on, then when it started, etc. Instead, the definition, why it was important, and what it was modeled on can be in the first paragraph. Then, in the second, the timeline in chronological order. And, in the third, what the response was.
4. Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense?
- The article is overall well-organized so that all the relevant information is in the introduction. However, the introduction itself could have a better structure (see my answer to Question #3).
5. Did I notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to my own article?
- I think that the definition of the topic should be elaborated on more, something I've been trying to do with my article.
6. As a reader, what else would I like to know about the topic?
- I'd like to know more about what villagization involves. Where were people resettled? Where was this implemented regionally?
7. How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?
Lead section: The article provides the right information in the lead section but could be better organized.
Clear structure: Yes. The overall structure appears very thorough. I'm not sure what the difference is between some sections based on the titles like "Legacies" and "Results of Villagization." I might make the titles more obviously different.
Balanced coverage: Yes. I think it will be balanced once written, but this is hard to answer based on the introduction only.
Neutral Content: Yes. I did not feel it was biased at all.
Reliable Sources: Yes. There are some very good sources including HRW and books published with reputable publishers.
JustJanani (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Jacob Neel's Peer Review
[edit]1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you?
The article does a great job at framing the concept you will be discussing throughout your article. I was impressed with the historical context surrounding the topic and overall summary that was given. I think explaining villagization to start the article is a strong way to start the article.
2. Where do you see room for improvement or further development? I think to improve the article I would recommend adding more context behind some of the other headers you want to implement throughout your article. I think being able to do this will allow the reader to understand succinctly the direction you want to go and the method you want to organize your article.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?
I think removing or integrating the information you're going to add to your "Precursors" section into the introduction of your article would be the most important thing to improve your article currently. I think it's an unnecessary section or it could easily be added to your introduction to formulate the topic of your article.
4. Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense? I think the direction you want to take the article, with exception of the Precursors section, is well-organized and is going to have a structure that makes sense.
5. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I would have to do more research to determine that.
6. As a reader, what else would you like to know about this topic?
I would like to see how villagization has affected the nations surrounding Ethiopia and the global impact it bequeathed from an economic perspective, if feasible to explain.
7. How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?
Lead section: The article has a strong lead section to set the tone of the article.
Clear structure: The structure is succinct and formulated in a style that is easy for the reader to navigate through.
Balanced coverage: Yes. The coverage is well balanced throughout the article as it touches on multiple bases that correlate with one another.
Neutral Content: Yes. The content does not elude to being biased or opinionated.
Reliable Sources: Yes. There are a multitude of reliable sources that support the content that is throughout the article.
Jay cub925 (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
[edit]The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
