User talk:Bellamelodia/sandbox

Peer Review - Amjad Hanifah
Nice distilled view of green neoliberalism! Supported with plenty of details. I noticed some the information was missing citations, especially in the first and third paragraphs. I also think breaking down the article into subsections would make it easier to navigate. Very informative overall!

Response
Hi Amjad, thanks for your feedback, it was very helpful! I added subheadings and citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellamelodia (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review - Anjali
Hi! I am Anjali from the Tuesday section and I am one of your peer reviewers. If you have any questions feel free to reply to this feedback!

1. Your introduction was clear and well worded, but I am having trouble still understanding what Agroecology is (especially since I have never heard of it). It could be beneficial to add in a sentence giving an example of what ecological concepts are used to have sustainable agroecosystems. Maybe you can mention some benefits to the environment?

2. I love your ideas of additions to the history section. Expanding on what you have would be a really great addition to the article! "This recognizes that some solutions and innovations to offer, while local knowledge systems developed over thousands of years have just as much to offer." This original sentence can be reworded to allow for better flow.

3. In the Economic benefits section, I would suggest adding an opener sentence summarizing all the benefits from the examples (such as increased yields). You could also discuss the money spent on agroecology - is it cheaper? Does it generate profits? Does it produce greater sales?

4. Your idea of adding a section of consequences is great! I think it would be really interesting to hear of some possible drawbacks/problems surrounding agroecology as well as criticisms.

Overall, your ideas for reorganizing and adding are well developed, and it looks like you know exactly what you have to do next. It seems like you have a variety of sources (although you probably need to find some more). One thing I noticed is that source #9 is used very often, so maybe you can search for another source to replace some of the information? Good luck!

--Akalra.18 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Jed
Hello Bori! What are the chances that we're peer reviewing each others articles!!! I appreciate the comments you left on my talk page and I enjoyed reading what you have started here. Overall, it seems like you've done a lot of work for this project and I admire the effort and research you have put in so far! You have a lot of good ideas about how to improve your article through the addition of new sections and the reorganization of old ones.

Ecopedagogy: The suggestions for overall edits seem like really important and necessary contributions to the article! I took a look at the ecopedagogy article and read the lead section and the objectives and aims section and it was rather dense and wordy! I think making the writing more accessible is so important for wikipedia. Looking forward to seeing the work you do with this article.

Acroecology in Latin America: Great great work here. The sections that you added (history), and that you plan to add (goals, the role of social movements, the role of research, social and cultural benefits, examples by country, and controversy) will all be such helpful additions to this article. They add complexity, insight, and depth and understanding of the topic. For example, the history section you added helped me understand the context to acroecology as a whole and then how it started in Latin America. This shows me that the information you added is absolutely relevant to the topic and will assist readers who want to learn about this sector. Like mentioned by my classmate, it would help to have more context or a simpler definition of what agroecology is. Making this definition more accessible will also be helpful to other readers who are not versed in the subject matter. Separating the examples by sector and country is really cool too. I'm interested to know what type of controversy you plan to talk about, whether that be ethics, labor practices, biopiracy, or something else. For example, when you talked about the beginning of acroecology and the introduction of it in Latin America, I'm skeptical that the concept and practice was actually developed by an American in 1928. From my gathering, the term of agroecology seems like something that has been practiced for millennia by indigenous people, as the article mentions here "This recognizes that some solutions and innovations to offer, while local knowledge systems developed over thousands of years have just as much to offer". I'd like to know more about the demographics of who is actually practicing agroecology and what the intersection of traditional indigenous practices versus modern day "American"/scientific agroecology looks like. That being said, biopiracy means "the exploitative appropriation of indigenous forms of knowledge by commercial actors" and in my opinion seems like it might be a relevant controversy. IF not intentional appropriation then the erasure of and lack of representation of the history and culture of indigenous people.

Again, good job! keep up the good work and good luck with this class and on your practice experience! Jtlee0 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)