User talk:Sabrinadegnan/sandbox

Peer Review (Pablo Moreno):

•Not entirely sure whether you are improving an article or creating a new one but it seems like all the information you have presented covers the section focusing on money laundering. I think this is a better idea, as it relates to class material considerably more.

•You could examine the issue of cross boarding smuggling more in depth by looking at the relationship / deals between the authorities and the smugglers. For instance, you could examine different methods of payment, communication etc.

•I would suggest dividing your facts into different sections whenever possible. You seem to have a bunch of interesting facts but it is hard to give advice if there the structure of your article is missing.

•I do not know how much information is available on this topic, but you might want to add a few academic sources to your research. The Wall Street Journal can serve as complimenting source but your main argument probably wants to come from somewhere else. However, the Wall Street Journal is known for being a centrist source with little bias.

•Maybe it would be a good idea to structure your article in a way where following the introduction, you present some of the main facts relating to the event in chronological order. You seem to have enough facts to build a timeline of events.

•Following up on the last point, it might also be helpful to add a section that describes the different parties that were involved in this scandal.

Peer Review - Moussa Fellahi

Good evening Sabrina !

Thank you for your comments. I will take them into consideration with this week's assignment. I apologize for the delay in posting this peer review today, it's pretty hard to take a critical stance towards other student's work without feeling hypocritical or falling into a 'you should be taking your own advice' position. Nonetheless, here are few points that I think you could take into consideration as you continue your final project :

→ First of all, Your draft shows extensive factual research on the subject of matter. You seem to be working with a lot of interesting content. I don't know how you feel about it at this point but I would edit the existing section, rather than create a new article based on the scandal. I did a little research on Wikipedia, and I found very few articles dedicated to one scandal. I don't know if professor Balan will agree, but I think you should work with this section, without hesitating to create additional sub-headers inside. Also I think you might need much more references if you decide to create a new article. By just looking at the sources section of most articles even the small ones, it seems like a tough job.

→ You should start dividing up your content into sub-headers soon. Your article does show a certain continuous logic in between your different bullet points, but there seems to be some distinct themes and information that could encompass the others. For example, the first paragraph could focuses somehow on the extent of corruption in Mexico with its ties with the Cartel, encompassing the business of cross-border smuggling. Same way, Banco vital could be another sub-header that encompasses your content all the way until the scandal with Zhenli Ye Gon (although I would provided a bit more background information on him) (etc..). Also I think you can make the structure of your section more thematic, maybe dedicate one section to the chronological unfolding of events and come back to the different factors and causes.

→ I did not get the impression that your article was biased. It seemed pretty factual, neutral and straightforward. It's pretty good because it's easy to read this way and somewhat exciting at some time (maybe that's just me, but i love scandal stories like that). It would seem silly to include a perspective that defending HSBC but maybe draw on how the Bank justified its ties, choices (especially the fact that they rated Banco Vital as standard despite its ties with the Cartel) or whether to held themselves accountable and to what extent. Also, make sure you to introduce your sources somehow, especially if you cite them. I liked your mention of Netflix's episode. Maybe draw on some segments from the documentary to illustrate your content. Since this is still a university project, maybe a bit more academic sources.

→ Try to use more of the Wikipedia tools to structure your articles, notably to interject references to your sentences or redirect to other articles through some key words (the ones in blue).

These are my main remarks as up to now, I can't really think of more things to say, I would suppose I lack the knowledge about the subject of matter. Maybe brush up your content, find a convenient structure for yourself and you should be able to produce a pretty good section. Your draft shows good potential!

All the best,

Moussa.

Manuel Balan Review

This draft still needs quite a bit of work, as the comments above show. First, I would improve on a section of an existing article rather than create a new one. Second, there are currently NO academic, peer reviewed sources (in fact, there are no sources, period). Then, in terms of structure, this is in outline mode, and not a well organized or informative outline at that. Divide your work in sections, start following the wikipedia format, and add sources. This needs quite a bit of work still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 17:44, 27 March 2018 (UTC)