User talk:Ariellibelly/sandbox

Irvina's Peer Review
Hi Arielle! My name is Irvina and I'm from the Tuesday section of GPP. If you have any questions or comments about my suggestions/comments, feel free to reach out :)

Reservation Poverty

First Large Paragraph

I only have a few minor suggestions that could be applied in the first part of your edits in regards to language.

1. "Communities on reservations face unique challenges and are disparately affected by poverty...."

The usage of the word unique does not convey a neutral tone and is in a sense subjective in what is considered "unique". I think it would suffice to merely mention they face challenges or a variety of challenges.

2. "Poverty is at the forefront of these challenges"

This sentence was stated without a reference and it seems like a very bold claim to say it is the "forefront" of all the challenges communities on reservations face. It also portrays a more subjective tone.

Environmental Justice on Native American Reservations

1. "For Native nations, environmental justice on tribal land is more than the enforcement of equitable protection of human health and natural resources, it is also a matter of tribal sovereignty, self determination, and redistribution of power."

For this paragraph, it doesn't sound very encyclopedic. The usage of the "...is more than....it is also..." seems to portray a more opinionated perspective versus a neutral one. The sentence also assumes the perspective of everyone in native nations.

''Generally, most of my comments were more on the tone and usage of certain words on the article that portrayed a non-neutral tone. Wikipedia emphasizes an encyclopedic tone and it's definitely not easy to write in that manner, but hopefully you will consider the comments I made. The last thing I noticed about this section of your edits is the citation of certain sources, specifically 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14. I don't know if it shows the same thing on your browser, but on mine, when I try to click on the sources for any of those numbers, it just redirects me to where it is cited in your article. While your other sources show author names, publication dates, etc., these sources only show ^. Not sure if that's just a problem with my computer, but if the citation shows up on your computer you can forget my comment. Overall, I think you did a lot of great work! Your edits definitely adds more detailed and relevant information to the article. ''

Ecopedagogy

''My main concern would be the same as the comment I mentioned for the Reservation Poverty page, which would be my inability to see what your sources are. I can't see either one of your citations and they show up only as ^ without any more information. Again, if you can see it on your computer, then you can ignore the comment. This page seems to have a lot of information, so I would also suggest citing more of the information that is already apart of the article. It would be a huge contribution to wikipedia if the bulk of information in both of the sections you're working on is cited. Considering the original article was undecipherable, the areas you are editing provides a fruitful explanation on what ecopedagogy is as well as its objectives and aims. ''

Most of my suggestions/comments were minor, but I hope they're helpful! Good luck with the rest of your editing! Chadowelf (talk) 07:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Arielle's Peer Review
Great article contributions, you picked a really interesting article to research about. My comments are below:

1) I was thinking that under the section "Environmental Justice on Native American Reservations" the sentence begins with a quotation, I'm not sure if that was just a typo- or if the sentence starts off that way, but if it does than maybe add a topic sentence first, and then go more into detail adding the quote in somewhere in between.

2) Also under that section, possibly adding sub sections because you go into detail about certain issues the reserves face, so something like "Challenges within the Native American Reserves", and then a sub-sub section on like "health outcomes", "destruction of land", etc.

3) The sentence "there are 334 reservations in the US today", could fit better under the paragraph that comes after (I wrote it in parentheses). Or the second paragraphy could go before the first, because you would initially be giving background information first and then going into details.

4) I really like when you put the perspective coming from the Native Americans detailing that their land has been the most bombed, a strong article is one that shows minority perspectives in addition to researchers work, so I would add more of that in the article so that there is a balance of both.

S.sherif (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Final Thoughts on Main Space Contributions
Hey Arielle,

I really liked your contributions to the main space for Ecopedagogy. I particularly like the criticism aspect that you added, because it was very much needed. In this you maintained a more balanced article that is much to be admired. It also seemed very comprehensive and relevantly cited. My only critique would be regarding the general language of the whole article. It is very intense on its language and terminology as we have discussed this in class. I don't have any specific recommendations; rather, just a comment on how difficult it was for me as a reader to generally read the whole article. Maybe future editors and authors can figure out a way to translate this article in a way that is a bit more inviting to the average reader. But in regards to your section, I appreciate your work and use of language/flow of the article. I like how you added snippets and phrases in a way that allows the article to flow better.

Congrats. It is a triumph.

(Rbuell (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC))