Talk:Child soldiers in Africa

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yalmazan, Kekeo1121, Sdmoreno, Dimvasilk. Peer reviewers: Gabino.sanchez01, Nityasomani98, Kcb222, Royeniran.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mbrennan21. Peer reviewers: Hebertvictoria.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyvio
Pretty sure edit is a copyvio from here Would you be so kind as to revdel it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I also removed it from the user's sandbox, leaving his notes — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Developing this page
Hi folks

I'm slowly developing this page. Darkness Shines has reverted the changes a couple of times and I can't see why - I'm sure there's a good reason but can we discuss here pls?

My changes are in good faith and I aim to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines. If I get something wrong (I'm quite new) pls let me know and I'll fix it. I do welcome any one pointing out where I've got something wrong - it will make the article better - but can you give me a chance to fix it before reverting? Of course you're free to revert all the changes, but that will make my job very hard!

Thoughts?

UsingtheForce (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you taking the piss? How about not using two accounts bud. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't know why you have reverted my edits and I'm asking you to explain why. Can you tell me what content I'm removing from the page that you believe should stay? I haven't deleted anything from the bibliography, as far as I can tell.

I am quite new to Wikipedia, as I said, and I'm doing my best to follow the rules. You're right that this is not my only account - I just looked that up in the guidelines and didn't realise that I'm only supposed to have one account. I wasn't trying to mislead anyone though - it was just to make it easier for me to keep separate watchlists on different subject areas, and I would regard that as a legitimate use of another account. But anyway, I can manage with one account (FugitiveDave) and I'll fix this by using only that account from now on.

So, Darkness Shines - can you be precise about where I'm going wrong with this page and why you are reverting all my additions, which seem to me to improve the page content? And can you please assume good faith and be respectful when communicating with me?

Fugitivedave (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "assume good faith and be respectful" Hell no, you ain't new, using echo already, feck off. And nobody evah thinks having two accounts supporting each other is to "keep separate watchlists on different subject areas" when they overlap you think I'm a fecking idiot? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you're an idiot, no. I am new - I never edited a Wikipedia page before December 2017. I don't know what 'echo' is. As said earlier, I didn't realise about the accounts issue and I am only using one from now on. I still don't know why you keep reverting the changes to this page - please explain what is wrong with them because I can't see it. And yes, please be respectful when communicating.

Fugitivedave (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

PS I have asked for help to resolve the dispute through the dispute resolution system.

Fugitivedave (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Page development from February 2018
Hi everyone! I'm a bit new to the Wikipedia community, and I was hoping to expand upon this page along with a group of classmates. I noticed that there's a lot of interest in developing the page already, so I was hoping to get some input from you all for the edits we are proposing. Essentially, we would like to restructure the page and add a lot more detail that is not presently covered, going into a bit more of the state and inter-state dynamics of child solders in Africa. You can find a rough outline of the proposed changes in my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sdmoreno/sandbox. Any input would be very appreciated!! :) Sdmoreno (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Sdmoreno Sounds great. I had a look at your outline - looks good. I've also been wanting to develop this page, so maybe we can collaborate. The dispute with Darkness Shines, above, is settled now - DS had said they'll keep an eye on the page and will let us know here if we mess anything up. This page uses the Harvard referencing system, rather than the regular footnotes. Are you aware of Children in the military, which is a big page with an Africa section, Child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Child soldiers in the Central African Republic and other child soldiers pages? Fugitivedave (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Outline looks good, don't sweat the reference system, I'll format them for you. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the input! I did have my eye on those pages but I was hoping to start here for a bit, and then move on to work on the other pages too! We can definitely collaborate on the page-- our group will likely be making small edits throughout tomorrow evening and Monday so please feel free to review/add to those!2602:306:CF44:A390:FD2A:7EA6:22AE:A266 (talk) 06:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Initial edit looks good. Two things: 1) You've packed some new content into the article summary at the moment. The article summary should only contain content found elsewhere in the article. Plough on though and we can always shift text around later. 2) You're providing sources (great) but one are two are old and describing a shifting situation - see my edit for a workaround. Looking forward to seeing this page develop. Fugitivedave (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi all! I'm working with Sdmoreno in a group project as mentioned previously - I'll be making a series of edits today and hope to hear your thoughts soon! --Dimvasilk (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone through your edits and developed them a bit. If you think I shouldn't have changed something, you're free to change it back or (better) develop it further. The page is definitely starting to look up! You're making quite a bit of use of the Child Soldiers Global Report of 2004. There was also a 2008 version as well, and quite a bit has changed since then as well. It's probably too big a job to update all 44 countries now, but it would be good to make sure the seven or so countries in the 2017 UN list are up-to-date. I've updated CAR and DRC, but not the others.Fugitivedave (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Sdmoreno, See this, released yesterday - the most up-to-date reliable source for child recruitment around the world, I think: https://www.child-soldiers.org/news/child-soldiers-world-index-reveals-shocking-scale-of-child-recruitment-around-the-world Good to use for this page. Also, some of the refs you've added are just links - they'll need expanding into full refs. But the page is looking better now. Good luck. Fugitivedave (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I'll share with my group so we can add it in. Thank you! Sdmoreno (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive edits
Looks like there were many edits over the last 24 hours or so which were pretty detrimental to the article. In particular there are few duplicate references, and a couple references which aren't defined. Will these be repaired? It might be easier to roll back the edits in question. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mikeblas. The edits were constructive rather than disruptive but the references were garbled in the process. Students are working on the page as part of an assignment, new to WP, and I messed couple of refs up too. Please bear with them and me. Thanks for your fixes (but please don't revert!). Fugitivedave (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's possible to make the case that removing and breaking references in existing material is not disruptive. I think a camping mentality applies to Wikipedia: try to leave it better than you've found it. It's good to add material, but if new contributions cause problems with existing content, the improvements aren't accretive. If you or your students need help in getting references set or formatted correctly, please don't hesitate to ask. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. They're not my students but I'm keeping an eye on the page and will do a tidy-up once they've finished their project. The article was little more than a stub last week, so it's better now, but it will need a bit of attention afterwards. Thanks for your fixes and for offering to help - I might be in touch if I get stuck with the refs (which is quite likely). Fugitivedave (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Mikeblas and Fugitivedave-- my apologies for the broken links. I'll go back and review the process for making these and double check with my groupmates to make sure we're all doing this correctly. This was one of our firsts drafts of the page and we're definitely hoping to clean up the issues and expand it some more, especially with some more recent sources, and add some more historical context, though up until now I've had some difficulty finding those. Thanks for the input! Sdmoreno (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review - Nitya
In the regions of concentration section, it says that the overall incidences of child soldiers appear to be concentrated in Central Africa. However, based on the statistical table shown below, the highest concentration of child soldiers is in South Sudan (North Africa). If the inconsistency is because both the statements are based in different years, then it would be useful to explicitly clarify that. Otherwise, the statement seems incorrect based on the evidence.

The risk factors section could potentially be expanded to include risks to psychological, social and physical health and the effects of trauma. The risks could be made specific to the general conditions in the camps - such as low nutrient food, etc causing underdevelopment/maldevelopment.

Overview by country - the language for Burundi could be made more clear - specifically, the second sentence and the last sentence are confusingly phrased.

Treatment of child soldiers post conflict section - The first sentence of this section is confusingly phrased. It could perhaps be split into 2 sentences to be made more clear. Even in the second sentence, instead of separating clauses using a hyphen, commas can be used and smaller sentences can be formed instead of one large sentence. The use of hyphenation instead of commas for the separation of clauses seems to be a pattern in all of the introduction to this section. This could be rectified to be more grammatically correct. The sub-section on psychological impacts focuses on consequences rather than treatment. It would be more relevant to the section to mention any existing therapy or rehabilitation programs offered by the Government or private organizations in these countries. In the reintegration efforts sub-section, assistance programs are mentioned but not elaborated on. I think elaborating on the specifics of these assistance programs, particularly who they are run by and what they entail, would be a valuable addition to this section.

Overall I think the article is really comprehensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nityasomani98 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

General comment
Hi and others. I have done a little work on articles in this area, supporting the stalwart efforts of Fugitivedave. I came across this and am very impressed. I have just assessed it as C class, but 3 or 4 more references (or the removal of the unreferenced material) and it will be B class. I think that then you should consider requesting a copy edit from GOCE and submitting it for Good Article assessment. Well done to all involved. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)