User talk:Joseita Tesolin/sandbox

Joseita's Peer Review
- the first thing I would suggest is to add maybe a bit more substance to the "lead" paragraph (combined with or following the definition)(just two or three sentences), to add why this topic is important and relevant to corruption more generally and maybe summarize some consequences of it in this part? more of an overview of what is to come in the rest of your article.

the Argentina example, I think, is great, it's balanced because you included the perception of the voters themselves and how they perceive these brokers.

Mexico example: - Is the first sentence really necessary? it seems to me like it doesn't belong there... - I would reformulate the second sentence, as it is a bit unclear when read at first. (maybe something like: "Similarly to Argentina, vote buying in Mexico has been found to be most prevalent in rural and poor regions of the country." - you should further link this with your next sentence, it's not so clear whether they follow or not. what is the importance of stating that vote buying occurs more in rural areas? is it because it is that portion of the population which does not benefit from a social program and was targeted in vote buying? if so, you can make that more clear. - overall this paragraph on Mexico can be restructured to flow more logically and further expanded (more in-depth, more details on cases of vote buying, why the parties did so, how did voters respond, were there any legal sanctions or repercussions, etc...

Nigeria example: - Perhaps you could elaborate more on the prevalence of vote-buying in Nigeria by referring to particular cases...

- you could expand on potential (historical, social, economic, etc) factors that make this country vulnerable to vote buying.

- the last section of the Nigeria case study, where you mention difficulties in research of vote-buying, I think this section could be made into its own sub-section, (in the Considerations section?)...

Kenya example: - gives an overall good idea of the prevalence of vote-buying in Kenya. perhaps you could elaborate even further, trying to point to why it is a prevalent practice and how voters perceive it or react towards it, for example.


 * an overall suggestion for you examples section would be to have a similar structure and content in each one of your example countries, to more easily compare the cases of vote-buying across these contexts.

"Who to target": you give a good balance of viewpoints/arguments about who is usually target in vote-buying. - however, you are missing a citation after stating that other scholars argue that people of low income are most targeted. the rest of the paragraph is also missing citations.

"How to monitor": - missing a few citations - it is not quite clear what you mean by "personalized social norms" - overall you cover well the issues that arise with monitoring votes

"Consequences": - you should add a citation in your first paragraph (to back your claim that vote buying poses a threat to democracy) - the second paragraph seems to be stating a very similar argument to the previous one... maybe distinguish your two points more clearly... - add a citation for your third point... - overall it seems a bit argumentative, maybe try to find other viewpoints to present a more balanced view of the consequences of this practice.

Turnout buying: - perhaps you could compare turnout buying with compulsory voting...how are the incentives different from the different parties enforcing these measures... - who practices turnout buying and why? (theories in academic literature, not just specific country cases...)

- Argentina example: maybe recap the Argentina case, if the reader did not read the first example on Argentina above then it won't be clear to them what you are referring to in this paragraph.

- Advantages: in the first sentence you are stating your own opinion by saying "this is definitely a positive attribute" ... which should be avoided.

- disadvantages: - missing a few citations... - it seems that the line between vote buying and turnout buying is somewhat fuzzy... maybe you can address that explicitly as to not confuse readers or try to present a more clear cut representation of turnout buying...

Overall you have a really good start! I would say that your wording is somewhat more argumentative rather than neutral which could be an issue... the overall structure could also be re-organized, like having more theoretical discussions first followed by your case studies/example countries...(that is up to you!) also just adding some citations would strengthen your article a lot!

Elaparra (talk) 15:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

1.	Vote Buying Section: This section is good but will likely need a contextual paragraph to really set up the topic well with a brief intro before the definition and examples, all four of which are relevant and varied in geographic location. The usage of academic literature is excellent, but the sections read a bit more like an academic paper and less like a Wikipedia article. It feels as if an argument is being presented at times and perhaps paraphrasing and citing rather than using the author’s name and quotations would better serve the informative nature of the article. The use of figures and concrete examples is excellent in providing context to the concepts presented. Perhaps those concepts following the examples such as “considerations” and “consequences” could precede the examples though. This would set up a more Wikipedia feel to the article and reduce that academic feel. As for the content of those conceptual sections it feels argumentative in areas, particularly the “consequences” section, and adapting to a neutral tone would easily fix this. I'm going to disagree with Ela on her comment about smoothing out the transition from Argentina to Mexico as the headings do the job and make the page more navigable for the reader.

2.	As in the previous comment, the order of the turnout buying section could be flipped to reflect the larger context and then the examples. This could also benefit from a bit more introductory development. Also, as previously mentioned the tone is rather academic but this is a pretty easy fix I would think considering the strength of the writing. The sections are strong and well sourced as was the voter buying section. One nitpicky thing would be that your definition of turnout buying does not really indicate what it means to "turnout" in the electoral sense. The US example is developed but I feel that the Argentina example from voter buying could be reiterated as this does not really form a stand alone section.

3.	General things: you use first person plural pronouns a few times (under Mexico, advantages, and disadvantages headings) which contributes to that academic writing style. This is very well done but in the neutral informative context this is a bit out of place. Your writing is very thorough without being wordy or getting off track and you explain things in an orderly and succinct fashion and this is a great draft. All your sections are quite well developed with exceptional sourcing and with some formatting editing as well as standardizing your citations Wikipedia format you’re well on your way to having an excellent final product. :) ColinHarkins1 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Colin Harkins

Manuel Balan Review
Overall I agree with he comments above, this is off to a very good start. Just be careful with the tone (objective, not argumentative) and with your paraphrasing of some arguments. Also, careful with the use of sources. Still, very good work so far, keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manuelbalan (talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)