User talk:Editor9879/sandbox

What The Article Does Well

 * 1) Assuming the paraphrases you list are accurate to the original source and fall under proper citation etiquette (as I can't independently verify either), they are both relevant and strong potential additions to the parent article. You have certainly picked out some choice sections.
 * 2) The sheer volume of the paraphrases you list gives the reader not only a good idea of the topic's background but also of your general focus concerning it (Particularly the role of gender and likewise economic interests).
 * 3) The article in general appears completely neutral on the subject, with no overt indication of bias (it could have a little bit of selection bias in terms of the quotations chosen but that is just something to be kept track of, not something provable in the current state of the article)

Suggested Changes

 * 1) There is a general lack of sources, primary or otherwise. As a result, you are relying solely on a single book to give you multiple perspectives for your topic. I suggest scouting for more primary sources (Google Scholar, The Master Journals List, Scribner Library Online, and even the authors found in the parent article's references list are good places to start) and comparing them to the one you have already (especially ones that differ in key areas of fact or on controversial topics).
 * 2) The source you do list isn't cited properly and as a result, can't be accessed easily for peer review (I myself could not locate a free readable version of the book to compare your paraphrases to). I suggest putting it through the automatic citation feature on Wikipedia and making sure it can be located independently based on the information given, if a direct link isn't possible.
 * 3) As it stands, there is no formal structure to your draft (i.e. no heading, references section, etc.) I suggest copying the structure of your article (at least for the sections you plan to work on) and maybe adding a few of your own should you feel the need to do so.
 * 4) While it's clear you wish to focus on the roles of Indo-Caribbean women, the lack of a "Proposed Changes" section on the parent article's talk page makes it difficult to discern the specifics of your intentions with editing. I suggest creating such a section in order to be more explicit in your thought process.

Most Important Thing(s) To Change

 * The lack of primary sources and a formal structure are the most urgent concerns.

Applicability Of The Article To My Own

 * Unfortunately, due to the striking differences in subject matter and focus between our two articles, I cannot see much applicability in your current article for mine. Cmanke99 (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ellie! Hope you're doing well. This is Joseph from your Asian Religions class. In terms of changes, I would first consider making a fully fleshed out plan or outline of what you plan to change in the article. So far it seems that you've located and paraphrased one source which deals with Caribbean immigration legislation, and it gives me the idea that you want to contribute to your article by adding how specific immigration laws have affected Indo-Caribbeans, and more specifically Indo-Caribbean women. That said, it's important to clarify what exactly your theme is regardless of if my idea is accurate or not. Also, it's important to utilize more than one source in your article and I would encourage you to go to the Skidmore library database and look up the phrase "Indo-Caribbean Woman", and if that does not get you any results look up "Indo-Caribbean". Lastly, after doing both of the aforementioned changes I would post your proposed list of changes on the article's talk page so that you can receive some feedback from editors outside of our class.

Wind-up Winter (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

feedback on draft
Hello! I do not have much to add to the excellent comments from Wind-up Winter and Cmanke99. I agree that of most importance moving forward is to develop a more detailed plan for what you plan to do. It seems the notes here are meant to add detail to the Migration history subsection. You had also mentioned wanting to focus your work on a different page - that of Indo-Trinidadians and Tobagons. Are you still planning to do that? If not, there is definitely more you could do to improve this page: 1) has your research turned up any information about interactions in these countries between Indo-Caribbeans and people of other ethnicities? If so, that would be helpful to add. 2)Has your research turned up other examples of commemorating the migration of indentured servants? I see this source from the page takes up this topic: https://repeatingislands.com/2009/05/07/st-lucia%E2%80%99s-indian-arrival-day/ 3) as a page that encompasses the experience of people across many island nations, it is intrinsically comparative, so I would look for aspects of the experience of migration or post-indepedence history that people in these places had in common; 4) adding more sources. Given the huge amount of scholarship out there on Indo-Caribbean history, culture, religion, politics, etc. the sourcing on the original page is really thin, and you would be doing a great service by helping readers learn of its existence. Thanks for improving this page!

Ziegenbalg66 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)