User talk:Globalera/sandbox

Hi there, I see you've selected your articles and set up your basic outline for the evaluation. Just make sure to take care of this section of your sandbox soon so you have an idea of what you will tackle across the course of the semester. -Momo Sumomox4nouchi (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)sumomox4nouchi

Nick's Peer Review
Hi Dylan,

Overall I think your planned contributions are great!

For the Navarro River page, I think the article as a whole is clearly neglecting the water's importance to the Pomo people and thus I think this was a good choice. By the same token, this is enough information that it could potentially warrant a new section. I feel that your additions are properly placed in the existing sections, but creating a new one could be something to consider should you feel like you have more you want to say that doesn't necessarily fit into this framework. In terms of your actual statements, I think your planned addition to the "Water Use" section is very thorough and written with great encyclopedic tone. You might want to link the Pomo page so readers can see specifically who you are referring to and read more about them. Additionally, although you are talking about this later on, maybe make a brief statement about obstacles preventing the Pomo people from utilizing this water source to their needs. Something brief along the lines of "The Pomo currently struggle to fully meet these needs because..." And then you can go into detail in other sections. Otherwise it could seem to people just reading this section that the Pomo are simply users of the water and there is no issue. For the "History" section, I think your planned contribution is well-placed and well-written. The following history written by another user actually supports your statements, I would say. Right after the time you mentioned, colonization and industrialization begins alongside the river. You could perhaps clarify when discussing the Pomo's displacement. Reading through it isn't obvious what "onto the edges" and the "Round Valley Reservation" mean for the Pomo people. Are they still around the river but condensed to a small section? Have they been removed off the river completely?

With regards to the Restoration ecology article, I think it makes sense that your contributions are well-thought out, well-placed, and brief. This seems to be a thoroughly developed and complex page. Nevertheless, I think you are bringing an important angle to it. The first thing that catches my eye is the lack of citations. The bulleted list contains many broad and simple statements, some of which have gone uncited, so I suppose you could get away with doing the same. If you have a source you can cite, however, it couldn't hurt. Same goes for your planned addition to the paragraph. I understand the purpose of this sentence but something about it feels a little out of place/awkward. It may be that the other user's first sentence could be stated better, reading through I'm not sure what "the functions may be more valuable than its current configuration" really means. Given this unclarity and the fact that this sentence has already received criticism for being vague, I think you might want to consider reworking it yourself. This would benefit the article overall and you could also use it as an opportunity to tie your argument in. You seem to be making great progress and it appears there is plenty of material you still have yet to draw from. Good luck with further drafting! -Nick Nickallen7 (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Abe's Peer Review
Hi Dylan,

Wow, I don't know that I can hold a candle to Nick's in-depth review, but here are my impressions. The reformulation of the sentence about Ackerman Creek is much more rich in cultural relevance to the PPN than the original.

The new additions to the River History sub-section add valuable context regarding Pomo use of the river and balance the section against the post-statehood history of use by white settlers. Some sort of transition between the two might be advisable, such as, “...with their blood.[1] After California statehood, a sawmill was constructed…” I think a reader will get the gist of what you’re saying about the river running with blood, but the subject potentially deserves to be spelled out in its own sentence. Great addition otherwise, just needs a citation for the first sentence.

Your addition to the Restoration Ecology sub-section is appropriate and well-written. It does need a citation though, as it sounds like a potentially controversial subject. Since you’re not talking about the Pomo specifically, you might skim through and see if there’s anything useful in Berkeley Prof. Lynn Hunstinger’s article about the Northern California Yurok people’s connection with their land and watershed (reading from a different course I’m taking):

Huntsinger, Lynn, and Sarah McCaffrey. "A forest for the trees: forest management and the Yurok environment, 1850 to 1994." American Indian Culture and Research Journal 19.4 (1995): 155-192.

Lastly, while we in this minor are intimately familiar with the notion of “climate injustice,” my gut tells me that Clare and the Wikipedia editors would say to reword this sentence slightly to make it less controversial, unless you have a citation for that claim and a second citation offering a counter argument. Maybe consider an alternative phrase like “impoverished groups trying to cope with environmental change,” which gets at the same meaning, but doesn’t assign blame. It also incorporates non-climate effects, such as logging or watershed degradation.

Arguably the most important change you could make would just be to try to tie in more references, because it makes an article seem less like opinion and more fact-based or encyclopedic. This is a little tricky, since your Area references won’t have much or anything to say about the Navarro River. I’m in the same boat with my Wiki, where I feel some non-academic sources would be easier to find and better at filling in some key details than scholarly sources would be. On the other hand, your Sector articles seem like they’d have lots of relevant things to say for the Restoration Ecology article if you wanted to insert a few more sentences here and there in the larger article.

Keep up the good work! -A- 02:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Particular.Individual (talk • contribs)

References Section
Hi Dylan! Make sure to create a References heading at the bottom of your sandbox so that your in-text citations from your drafting have a home. Sumomox4nouchi (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)sumomox4nouchi