User talk:Jay cub925/sandbox

Janani's Peer Review
1. What does the article do well?

- The article provides important details about the Herder-Farmer conflicts and is clearly well-researched.

'''2. Where do I see room for improvement or further development? Why?'''

- The article could tie back in the sections more directly to communal conflicts so that readers understand the importance of each section to the main topic. For example, why does climate change causing migration affect conflict? This should be mentioned explicitly at the start of this section.

- Some of the sentence structures could be improved so that it's easier for the readers to understand the content. You could also use the active voice more often, instead of the passive voice. For example, the sentence "As observed from a "Push and pull"..." could be rephrased more directly as: Climate change has led to desertification, landslides, etc. causing the Fulani Herdsmen to leave their communities.

- I don't know what the "Push and Pull" model is - I'd explain this out.

- I'd add to the introduction somewhere that Fulanis are also known as Bororo or Bororo Fulanis and then only refer to them as "Fulanis" in your text.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

- Tie sections back to the main topic of the article more often. It'll help the reader not get lost in the details. (See my answer to Question #2.)

'''4. Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense?'''

- Yes. The structure makes sense and has several interesting parts. I might have only two headings instead of five: "Ethnic Conflicts" and "Herder-Farmer Conflicts." I'd then put all the rest in sub-headings under these two. (I think this might help because the introduction in the already written article divides the conflicts into these two headings.)

5. Did I notice anything about the article I reviewed that could be applicable to my own article?

- I think I need to research more details (as this author has done).

6. As a reader, what else would I like to know about the topic?

- I'd like to know what exact conflicts have taken place and more statistics about those conflicts. What kinds of conflict have occurred? Where do they occur? How many people have died/been displaced?

7. How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?

Lead section: The lead section has already been written but I'd make sure to edit this. I'd fix the (dubious-discussed) citation in the lead section. Also, the map doesn't seem relevant - maybe switch this to a map showing where the conflict is happening? And, the term "Belligerents" in the box seems too critical - "Participants" might be better.

Clear structure: The structure is clear and follows the existing introduction well.

Balanced coverage: Yes. I think it will be balanced once fully written.

Neutral Content: Yes. I did not feel it was biased at all.

Reliable Sources: Yes. There are some very good sources from peer-reviewed journals. When cited in the text, I believe that the endnote numbers (like [1], etc.) should be at the end of the first sentence cited to that endnote, not at the end of the paragraph.

8. Overall Feedback

Interesting article with lots of topics to explore! Can't wait to see the finished version.

JustJanani (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Selena's Peer Review
What does the article do well? - This article provides comprehensive and thoroughly researched information on herder-farmer conflicts in Nigeria. It is also very well-organized.

'''Where do I see room for improvement or further development? Why?''' - The first section on “ The Role of Climate Change on the migration of Fulani Herdsmen” lacks specificity. For instance, the first sentence is a claim which states that African countries are most affected by climate change globally but does not provide any information, especially in comparison to how the rest of the world fairs in climate change or sources that would contain said information to support this claim. The article would be much stronger with more sources, specifically from journal publications and other government databases.

What's the most important thing the author can do to improve the article? - I would recommend that Jacob not make over generalized statements without fully backing them first with more well researched sources.

'''Is the article well-organized? Does the structure make sense?''' - The article does make sense and is very well-organized. Despite my lack of knowledge on the topic, I did not have any trouble following what he was saying.

Did I notice anything about the article that could be applied to my own? - I would research more examples for my own article, as Jacob has done.

As a reader, what else would I want to know about the topic? -I would be interested in knowing how the herder-farmer conflicts have affected the local economies in the area and whether those effects have had any political repercussions.

How well does the article follow Wikipedia's five key components?

Lead section: - This section provides a structured overview of the issue without providing details that are too specific.

Clear Structure - The two sections provided are clearly organized. He followed the introduction well and provided solid examples of the conflicts. I did not have any trouble following this article as I read it.

Balanced Coverage - This article is relatively balances but will be more fully balanced upon completion.

Neutral Content - I see no biases in this article.

Reliable Sources - As thee sources provided are from peer-reviewed articles, they are fairly strong but the article itself would greatly benefit from researching/finding more sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Selenajgomez (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)