User talk:JenRooney90/sandbox

An excellent start and a promising way to approach the topic. You could add something on implementation to the opening summary (I think there were arrests this year) and state what if anything is unique about this commission. Dwebsterbu (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Overall, it's a great start to the article. I would warn though that there is a lot of repetitiveness throughout, for example some of the exact lines you use in your lead appear again throughout the article in different sections. One other thing I would suggest is that instead of using hyphens/dashes to separate thoughts in your article, incorporate them into the sentences (separate the thoughts using commas). I have some small suggestions for a few different categories so I will try to make them as clear as possible. I also went through to correct some grammar here and there lol!

Historical Context section:

the sentence ending with "much like many other Latin American countries..." cite this idea. It's a valid point but it should be backed up.
the sentence "repression was omnipresent" you can elaborate on this idea, it sound fairly vague but it was the beginning of a more thorough thought
speaking about the URNG: they seem to be an important actor in the conflict, it might be worth elaborating on their part and adding to the historical context.

Overall the section could use some clarification and elaboration in painting the picture of the conflict leading up to the commission.

Commission Logistics section:

the first sentence you say "the commission's duration lasted.." the sentence is sort of wordy and almost redundant so it could be simplified

Report Findings section:

the four causes would probably be better visually displayed in a list form than jumbled together in the sentence it is

Human Rights Statistics section:

I would just suggest that you add citations to the numbers of victims and whatnot.

one other suggestion, would be to reorganize your footnotes section and/or re-use reference entries so that you don't end up with as many repetitions of the same source.

AqilHC (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #2

Your article good and straight to the point. I find that your break down to the article allows for a smooth and consistent flow. I would suggest to expand your "Historical Context" section in order to allow readers to get fuller understanding of what led to the CEH. Your through breakdown of the CEH was helpful in getting a detailed and well rounded understanding of what the commission was, did and wanted to do. I agree with the other reviewer that the "Report Findings" section could have the causes shown in a list form. As well as the slight repetitiveness throughout the article.TGordon13 (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review #3

Great article! I would suggest attempting to develop a more encyclopedic narrative in the final draft, currently the article is reading as an essay particularly in the “Historical Context of the Conflict” section.

Suggested changes: Changing the wording of “there is a plethora of root causes of Guatemala’s 36 year civil war” to “there are a plethora of root causes to Guatemala’s 37 year civil war.”

There is a typo in the 3rd sentence of the same paragraph, currently reading “resultt” In “and thus counterinsurgency against the marxist insurgency groups was more severe” change to “and thus the counterinsurgency against the marxist insurgency groups was more severe.”

In the CEH narrative add more links.

Statements such as “why did the defenseless children suffer” may want to be changed to “why did children suffer.” This will result in more neutral language. If that’s how it is expressed by the commission I suggest placing it in quotations.

Statements such as “appointed by the aforementioned moderator and agreed upon by both parties, and one academic” may confuse a general audience. I suggest just naming the individual again.

Typo in “Human Rights Violations: Statistics” current reads “The principal focus on the CEH” change to “The principal focus of the CEH” Critiques and Controversy – statement “The state was well aware that the insurgency did not represent a real threat to Guatemalan political order” is a bold statement. It may be beneficial to either remove the statement or provide a source, preferably government, to combat any criticisms.

Overall your article is well written! S.R. Summerfield (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment

This is a very knowledgeable write-up. I've done a quick edit for typos and added/changed some links eg coup d'etat to the entry on the '54 coup. NPOV can be an issue in places, though in general it's backed up with a footnote. Citing the report or another authority is a way to express opinion without doing do yourself. Some repetition throughout eg "was made up of two men and one Mayan woman" appears twice.

The article is certainly ready to move to the Wikipedia mainspace. Tips on doing this appear in the “Moving Out of Your Sandbox” handout, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Classroom_handout_-_moving_out_of_your_sandbox.pdf

Dwebsterbu (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]