User talk:Dguar97/sandbox

Main Space Peer Review
Hello! For your "malnutrition" article, the reorganization of the table of contents into the sections of causes, prevention, and treatment are very useful in the understanding of the article. The section of "global understanding" is a great contribution! Much history is presented, and topics such as the right to food. One thing that can be done is by stating the different countries that implemented the treaty when you stated that there was 16 countries by 2018. An option you may think about to include would be a picture timeline with all of the topics being addressed in this section.

On your "Malnutrition in Peru" article much of the work can be seen in the History section. When you present the topics of the Direct Assistance Program and Vaso de Leche Program, you can go more into detail and provide a bit more information for these. Interesting to learn about the Child Nutrition Initiative and the other programs that were integrated. All of your contributions seem to be in encyclopedic tone. Information is presented in chronological order which makes it easy to follow.

Overall great work with both your articles! Samnegrete (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Edit Responses
Dan, Your article selections look great in response to what it seems like you'll be doing at your PE! I'll break down my peer responses in terms of each article.

For "Malnutrition" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition#Prevention)

- Overall, this seems like a fairly well-developed article so I am impressed that you are tasking yourself with the objective of improving it!

- The sources that you cited in your bibliography look great...other than reorganizing the article are you planning on adding to the article from those sources? I bet there are little nuggets of info that you could draw from them. Also, there are so many scholarly articles on PubMed about Malnutrition - maybe check there if you are needing any more!

- In terms of your titling, I like how you tried to make things a bit clearer. I do not think that it is necessary to break up the paragraphs in the way you did, however...maybe that is just my opinion! It seems a bit odd to have a section called "Food" and one called "Fortified Food" when maybe Fortified Food could just be a paragraph within food?

- Another thing would be that your main heading for that part is "Prevention". How is Diarrhea, Low Blood Sugar, and Hypothermia prevention of Malnutrition? Maybe move those sections over to "Effects".

- I like how you separated a section into Government Prevention. Maybe even adding a paragraph about the organization you are going to volunteer for and what they are doing to combat Malnutrition? Maybe also add something about the pros and cons of government intervention and previous case studies either enacted by the World Bank or similar programs?

- The Global Initiatives section is great. I really like how you added more programs to this section, it makes the article more current and more compelling.

For "Malnutrition in Peru" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malnutrition_in_Peru)

- This article is obviously a bit less developed and very relevant to your PE it seems. As you noted, the first long section is all from one journal...maybe work towards adding more sources to this section so it looks a little bit more diverse and researched? I totally understand finding one source that seems to have it all, however, so I wouldn't worry much about this point.

- I would be wary of making broad claims such as "Government intervention in Peru has seen success due to:" just because it is probably attributed to a myriad of factors that certain interventions were "successful" or not "successful". I would also be careful in defining what "successful" means in this context, because it is often the case with Public Health initiatives that success is merely seen as getting to the end goal of a program without attributing any signs of coercion / misuse of power that came with this success. (Smallpox eradication, for example).

- Overall, the History of Government Intervention section looks great and looks like you have added a lot of vital information.

- In your section on "The Service of Visiting Families (SAF) of the National Program "Cuna Mas"" there seems to be just a quote added with no explanation - I'm sure you are still working on this but definitely make sure to explain the quote and write about why you added it and thought it was necessary to add.

- For the JUNTOS section, it does not appear that the acronym is actually explained. What does JUNTOS mean? Also, if no significant results were found in "most indicators of prenatal health, child health, or chronic malnutrition" do you have any ideas of what efforts are being made currently to better this program?

Your contributions and sources look like they are very solid! Nice work, I hope my responses help :) Best, Ariabd (talk)

Note from Abraham Martey
Hi Dan, I(Abraham Martey) already published a peer review for you before 4 pm but couldn't find it when I checked your talk page so I did a second one for you. ( So please pardon me if you happen to see both edits). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abraham Martei Martey (talk • contribs) 00:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Overall, you did a good job using many sources for this section. It seems you are also working on many aspects of the article which shows a good commitment towards editing this article.I would, however, advise you to focus on a paragraph or two and do it well to meet the Wikipedia standards( Considering that Wikipedia standards are high). Abraham Martei Martey (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Global initiatives
I like the fact that you use 8 sources/references for this section. I also like the fact that you linked most concepts/words/names to other Wikipedia article (that will help readers of your edited article to get background understanding of what those concepts/words/names mean). Your tone and choice of word/concepts are neutral which is good for Wikipedia standard.However, many claims/concepts/additions were not cited which may lead to other Wikipedians questioning the reliability/credibility of those edits/claims. I would also suggest instead of using words such as hunger, you could use words such as drought, famine etc. I think you are doing a good job so far. Abraham Martei Martey (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Feedback for Malnutrition in Peru Article
In general, I like the flow of logic in your sentences/paragraphs and the structure of your sentences. However, as you mentioned in your note to peer reviewers there are no citations in this section which puts the credibility of your additions/edits into question.

History of Government Intervention
The tone and choice of words in this section is neutral but since you have not cited your sources, I could not provide feedback regarding the credibility of your claims and the credibility of your sources. You have also use acronyms without explaining what they really stand for, an example is your use of CNI, though I understand it stands for Child Nutrition Initiative in your edits, you have not explicitly stated what it stands for which can confuse readers. I would also suggest that you rather focus on working on a paragraph or two and make it/them meet Wikipedia standards. Abraham Martei Martey (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The Service of Visting Families (SAF) of the National Program "Cuna Mas"
Though your edits/additions are good, they lack citations which put its credibility into question.You have also quoted a source in this section (I trust you understand it is against Wikipedia standards) and hence will rather paraphrase it in your own words. Abraham Martei Martey (talk) 00:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

National Program "Pension 65" and JUNTOS
Though these two sections are good, they lack source(s)/reference(s) and you have also not explained what JUNTOS stands for.

Abraham Martei Martey (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)