User talk:Kashif.sa96/sandbox

Peer Review by Magdalena Morales
I thought it was relevant that the final project draft had different sections in terms of geographic. When reading the original article, it is true that it is very U.S. oriented, despite of the fact that political machines are not limited to the American realm. Even the definition of what a political machine is starts with "In U.S. politics". As such, the different subsections of Eastern Europe, Latin America and Japan that have been added are significant to move away from an overrepresentation of the United States.

Additionally, the sources used to improve the article are excellent. Except from one source from The New York Times, all are peer-reviewed articles which discuss the topic directly. Using Morse-Gans, Mazzuca and Nichter to break down the five clientelism strategies is an effective way for the reader to understand the process behind political machines. It keeps it concise and simple. I also like the subsection concerning the possible benefits of political machines, but I am wondering if the word "possible" is relevant there. Are these possible benefits or actual benefits? I feel like the addition of the word "possible" in the subsection is confusing, as it seems to me that incorporating large masses or poor, urban voters into the electorate is an objective benefit. In that case, in the event of taking the word "possible" out, specific examples would be needed to demonstrate specific instances in which political machines do have benefits. I also think this section should be even more elaborated, to balance the negative viewpoint of it that dominates the overall article. I find interesting how political machines can serve as relatively democratic mechanisms and I would be interested to know more about that.

In the characteristic subsection, I would suggest explaining who James C. Scott is. Is he an expert in the field? Otherwise, he is just a name with no authority attached to it. In that same section, I would also suggest putting the last sentence, which clearly explains what a political machine, as the first sentence. This is the specific sentence I suggest moving to the front: "A political machine is a non-ideological organization that is more interested in procuring positions that principles, and providing the rewards of office for those who help run it.". That way, it is clear from the beginning what you're referring to.

Concerning the function section, I would suggest elaborating on the structure of the machine itself. In your article evaluation, this was a feature you mentioned needed work and I agree. There are not enough details on who forms the political machine and how. If you could give an example of an actual member activity as well as what "particularistic, material rewards" are exactly, this would be great. It would give the reader a concrete example of the machine's activity to complement the theoretical side of it. Furthermore, talking about the role of churches, schools and unions in political machines would again concretize it more and support your explanation of the function.

Finally, for political machines in Eastern Europe, Latin America and Japan, it would be interesting to see how the impacts of the machine vary across boundaries. Because the United States were overrepresented in the overall article, more development is still needed for balance. How do the political machines work differently in different places? I really like how you developed that with Japan's koenkai system, which is why it would also be great to know more about other countries too.

MagdalenaMorales (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
The wikipedia page is good for people who don’t have a lot of knowledge about the topic. That being said, one of the critical part would be to add more examples, first to help the reader put things in perspective and understand it more. Second, to show how “political machine” works in different places / with different cultures / through different political models.

CHARACTERISTICS

1 - I don’t really understand the intricacies of its difference with political clientelism. Would it be interesting to expand on that?

2 - You state that it is “most likely to be found in societies where voter mobilization is a method of obtaining power within the government”, this needs more explaining / clarifying. That sentence is a bit confusing.

3 - Also, it would be interesting to provide some sort of historical background from it. How did it start appearing, and why? Where? Is there some big scandal associated with it? As we talked in class, I know that causes of overall corruption are very hard to assess so it could be very brief.

4 - Finally, the use of James Scott as a source is good because it is providing very interesting content but it talks mainly about the American society / provides only one source. If the topic is that broad, maybe adding other sources to add complementary information would be a plus.

FUNCTION

1 - You talk about self-interest and material rewards, maybe interesting to talk more about it. Why do the strong links persist only through material rewards? Maybe give a bit more context to the argument. POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF POLITICAL MACHINE

I particularly appreciate this section and I think that’s a critical part of the article as too many times, things are portrayed in a very Manichean way.

1 - That paragraph shows that there could be a grey area. However, it needs more sources and it needs to be more developed. It is too broad right now, and it doesn’t look as a pertaining argument as it should be because of it.

Maybe show one example of how it theoretically benefited a community? Or expand on what you mean by class-cooperation, dissuading violence… through articles but also maybe through polls/studies? (if there are any)

2 - title needs to be changed = "possible benefits" is an awkward terminology

IN EASTERN EUROPE, IN LATIN AMERICA, THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY IN JAPAN

All those parts are very interesting because they provide examples of the political machine through a different context. Yet, as you talk about in function, there are many strategies used by political machine to maintain clientelist strategies. Hence, I think examples need more substances and structure.

OVERALL - very good job with the current additions proposed to the article, my main argument is that it needs more hands-on examples

> Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

See peer review

> Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Yes, it is neutral and very objective

> Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

See peer review

> Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Yes, the citations work and are obtained from reliable sources.

> Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Yes each fact is supported by an appropriate and reliable reference,

> Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

See peer review, but I think that the article lacks current examples and some kind of a historical account / chronological timeline to see how it evolved and is still evolving.

Mj.tolboom (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Manuel Balan Review
This is a good start, although the draft still needs quite a bit of development. Both sets of comments above are very good and on point. In particular, I think that Marion raises a few VERY important questions that your draft needs to address. The type of sources you are using is the right one, you just need to expand further. Last, you may want to think about how many different regions you want to cover. You should prioritize depth over breadth, and avoid spreading yourself too thin.