User talk:Eldryn T/sandbox

Hi Immaculata and Eldryn! First off I wanted to say, I really enjoyed reading your draft. This was a super interesting topic and I honestly learned a lot from it. I was really impressed with how much detail you guys added to the Third World vs. Three Worlds section as well as the Third Worldism section. The only comment I have on that is that there currently doesn't seem to be anything cited for all the great information added so I would definitely look into that as you don't want to be flagged for plagiarism! There was also a few cases in this new information where word choice was a little confusing, for example when you said the three worlds strategy was "part and parcel" of the Chinese revisionists' general line for... in the second/third paragraph of the Third World vs. Three Worlds section. I would also note (although this was definitely a mistake) that the first paragraph of this section was repeated! Another example where word choice could have been improved was at the end of the paragraph about Mozambique and Tanzania from this same section, you end it off with "more later" which reads a little clunkily and a bit like an essay transitional phrase than a Wikipedia article. Perhaps cutting this line might better the flow? I would also note that as much as I love all the analysis in this section, some of the conclusions made could be interpreted as biases, for example when in the fifth paragraph of the "TW vs TW" section you say "it wasn't a theory at all but rather an empty and shallow justification for the Chinese revisionists to pursue a pragmatic policy in international affairs." That is such a great analysis of the Mao quote and had it been an essay or paper of some sort it would have fit in perfectly, however, given the impartial nature of Wikipedia, perhaps saying something like "According to Mao," or finding another secondary source that supports your conclusions that you could cite might work better. Similar comment goes for when you talk about Lenin and Leninist theory, definitely love the claims but I feel as though having scholarly journals to back these up along with an explanation of where they came from would go a long way. Again, I really enjoyed reading your guys' article and I think it's clear how much time and research you put into it. To summarize my suggestions, I would just to be wary of your citations, be sure you're using general language and phrasing that's easily understood and also try to base conclusions on secondary sources making it clear of whose opinion it is to avoid biases. This is a super great article and you should be proud of the work you put into it! Thanks, Isabel