Talk:Community economic development

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): Gandrus100, Jam3jr, Karlbarl13, StephGarrett7. Peer reviewers: BrettEMay, Montiver, Johnnyq79.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Article Evaluation and Potential Improvements
The existing article provides a thorough definition of Community Economic Development and what it generally aims to accomplish. The strength of the article as it is now is that it is accurate and gives readers a brief understanding of what CED is. The weakness is that the article is not very detailed and provides only that a definition. Details should be added regarding CED from a more broad perspective providing not only a more thorough definition of CED but also information on its history, theories, policies, objectives, successes, challenges, and breaking into CED as as career choice. Our student group will work to improve this article in these particular areas.

Jam3jr (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Article Peer Review
The first paragraph of the article gave a very good overview of the topic on hand, giving the read a good idea of CED before delving into the main article. I believe the key points of the article are what CED is, its roles and how it can improve communities, and the potential obstacles it can face. The article contained a significant more amount of information than the original article (was a stump) and seemed to be very well referenced. I found the article to be very precise and it made excellent use of scholarly articles. The article relied on multiple scholars giving the article a wider perspective. I found the article worded appropriately when discussing the obstacles, not giving the reader potential bias. The editors make excellent and appropriate use of references, and used an acceptable amount of references. I found the language to be very precise, and very representing of the topic on hand. The article seems to be mostly value/judgement free, giving the reader a neutral standpoint. The entire article seemed to be from a neutral standpoint giving the reader appropriate information. I felt the language was very well written in the article, but I would still proof read it to make sure there's no minor errors. The language was easy for the reader to understand, and the formatting was very appropriate. The article does not contain a lot of links to other articles, but I do understand this is a pretty unique topic. The article does not contain any images. Possibly adding a few images of a community bank, or some community members working in the city, would give the readers a picture of CED. I really like how the group expanded this article, because it was originally a stump article and did not have a lot of information on it. The I highly commend the effort of the group for expanding the article as significantly as they did. The two suggestions I had: The first i mentioned about the pictures, and the second is that on the objectives and goals sections I recommend possibly adding some examples of how CED helps fight homelessness or poverty, and adding what some of those common initiatives may be.

Johnnyq79 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)John Quiser

Peer Review of Article
The first paragraph gave a good overview of the overall design of CED. It delivers a clear understanding of the main idea of CED being the definition, the purpose, the potential barriers, and how it will ultimately impact a region. I found that the use of scholarly articles improved the content of the original article and the editors added a significant amount of information and reliable sources. The additions to the article were more than sufficient and well thought out in precision. The main points were supported by good evidence and offered ample analysis. The article focuses on a clear topic and doesn't stray from the topic. The use of language and writing were easy to understand and were straightforward. The revised article leads the reader from a bias stand-point, remaining impartial throughout. The article presents a variety of references that are reliable concerning the content of CED. The arrangement of the article was acceptable as well as the literacy, but it would be wise to proofread the article in case any misspelling or illiterate content has been skipped over. The article does not have many images, but the current article provides a lot more information than the original article. The current article appears to have followed the proper formatting details of Wikipedia. BrettEMay (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)BrettEMay

Other Initiatives Needed
The article gave only initiatives from the USA. I have added Western Australian and Brazilian examples but we need cases from other countries. I understand in Scotland there had been CED initiatives in the Highlands and Islands, and that Canada has been active in the field too. Has anyone other examples?John D. Croft (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation
The article provided a general and straightforward definition of community economic development and its broad role in community building. The use of language was easy to understand and the overall organization was cohesive. My first recommendation is to provide a credible source to the “policies” category. This category makes important points but it would be good for a reader to know where the information was retrieved from to further explore some of the points that are made. For the theories and strategies category, there could definitely be an expansion on some of the specific strategies that community developers use. For example, some strategies that community developers use to boost local economic development is through transit oriented development, mixed-use development or focusing on industry clusters. It would be useful to include specific strategies so readers can have a good understanding of what community economic development entails.

Nneborak (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Nadezhda Neborak

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Community economic development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151208063731/http://asiafoundation.org/index.php to http://asiafoundation.org/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:19, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Community economic analysis into Community economic development. The former is a blurb that can easily be covered in the context of the latter article. The existence of two separate articles on basically the same thing is detrimental to both articles. It worsens the quality of both articles and dilutes the efforts of editors. Thenightaway (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose They are not the same concept. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:B4A5:A908:5BED:21A3 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Community Economic and Social Development II
— Assignment last updated by Clementina001 (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)