Talk:Survival International/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Pass or fail GA
I'm sorry to say I have to fail this article. Generally, the prose is wordy and often awkward. Many antecedent pronouns are unclear. Sentence structure is often poor. The prose is a little on the POV side, a bit too enthusiastic for its subject. The collapsible image gallery is fine in avoiding cluttering up the article with a bunch of images, but the article would benefit from a couple of inline images of indigenous people with suitable captions. As to the breadth and scope, I didn't get that far.

I suggest a peer review before it is resubmitted for GA. Many of these issues would have been identified in a peer review. See some specifics below.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Reviewer: -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 07:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Prose and style
See specific examples below. Many others also exist.

Lead paragraph
The lead paragraph is too long and needs to be broken into two paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.

Generally, the writing makes loose use of "they" and like pronouns, making the antecedant reference hard to track. For example, in the lead paragraph, "and the risks that they face". Does "they" refer to Survival or the indigenous people? In the sentence beginning, "A part of their mission" does "their" refer to the "people" or "Survival" in the prior sentence? Unclear. In the same sentence, "the risks they face" makes me wonder is this the people who need education, the indigenous people, or Survival? Lastly, in that same sentence, the last idea is written in passive tense: "that is forced upon them." Forced on who by whom?

Part of the difficulty of the lead paragraph is because of the run-on sentence containing two and clauses: "A part of their mission is to educate people from misconceptions that help justify violations of human rights against indigenous people, and the risks that  they face from the advancement of corporations, governments and also good  intentions based on an idea of "developlment" that is forced upon them." ("developlment" is misspelled.)

Instead, break the run-on sentence into two ideas. For example, "Survival's mission is in part to educate the public about misconceptions that justify human rights violations against indigenous people. Survival also seeks to inform people about the risks that indigenous people face when confronted with the pressure of modern development proposed by corporations and government." (I think "good intentions" may not be an informative phrase. Whose good intentions?)

There is a lot of work remaining to improve prose through out the article. The fact that I found an obvious misspelling in the lead paragraph is indicative of the general prose quality. For more info, see WP:MOS.

History
This sentence is awkwardly phrased: "The projects which are run oversea, are carried and managed by the tribe itself." Perhaps it is more accurate and direct to say, "Overseas projects are managed by local indigenous tribes."

Tribes
This sentence has problems: "Most of them have been persecuted, facing genocide by diseases, relocation from  their homes by logging and mining, and eviction by settlers." I don't think genocide can be committed by disease. Genocide is committed by institutions, organizations, or people. Genocide is usually done with intent. Unintentionally carrying disease that infects people may be genocidal in its consequences, but it is an inflammatory bit of rhetoric and not NPOV, and its use should be attributed. Finally, the sentence suggests the tribes face relocation "by" logging and mining. Perhaps this should be "as a result of" logging, etc.

Campaigns
"A common threat for the tribes Survival campaigns is the invasion of their lands for exploration of resources." This leads me to believe that Survival lands are invaded. Perhaps, "Tribes defended by Survival around the world face common threats including the invasion of their lands for resource exploration."

Another example of poor sentence construction: "The Ogiek, in Kenya, have tea plantations, and the Amungme in Indonesia, the Bushmen in  Botswana, the Dongria  Kondh in India, and the Palawan in the Philippines have  mining fields." It appears that each of these tribes own the industries mentioned, not that these industries are a threat to them. The multiple clauses separated by commas create added confusion. Perhaps it could be written as, "The Ogiek in Kenya face the intrusion of tea plantations. Mining threatens the way of life for the Amungme in Indonesia, the Bushmen in Botswana, the Dongria  Kondh in India, and the Palawan in the Philippines."

A third example: "Survival international has also pointed out in their campaigns against the assault on their way of living to the effect of the work of missionaries." I think this means, "Survival has also addressed the negative impact of foreign missionaries on the indigenous people's way of life."

Accurate and verifiable
The article is a little to enthusiastic for its subject. For example, "Beyond the genocide in consequence of diseases and hunger brought through the loss of dependence to the environment and to stolen fertile soils..." Genocide is a very strong, even perjorative word. It is used five times in the article. While perhaps justified in describing the results of actions against the native people, it might best be addressed as a single focus someplace in the article. That might strengthen the impact of its usage when all of the impacts producing genocide are grouped together. "Stolen" is another word that is POV and should be attributed. Who says they are stolen?

Thirty-three, or more than half of all citations, are drawn from the Suvival International web site. This results in a heavy reliance on Survival International as a primary source. See WP:PRIMARY and WP:POV for details.