User talk:MParacha/sandbox

AHIS 320 Peer Review
This content improves on an existing article on a South Asian female activist and as such, addresses a content gap in Wikipedia. Harsha Walia's life and activism is substantially referenced and qualifies as notable.

Overall, the new content is carefully considered and accurately written. It is well organized and the logically structured to present Walia's life and work. My only concern is that the content tends to fall into the vernacular of our class, thus could fail to reach the intended general audience unless some of text is translated into simple, easy-to-understand language. Also, "Wikipedia’s policies ask you to paraphrase whenever possible" and there are numerous quotes throughout that are used to reference Walia's work and thinking. In some cases, this presents what would be considered biased content that would not meet Wikipedia's neutrality standard.

Here are some specific suggestions:

The article could benefit from the addition of an Infobox with categories including: Born, Occupation, Nationality and Movement.

Lead: I would tighten this, cutting content after "United Nations" and through "change-making." Though the rewritten content has more depth, the simplicity of the original lead makes it easier to read and understand. Here is how it starts: "Harsha Walia is a social justice activist and journalist who is best known for co-founding the Vancouver chapter of No One Is Illegal. She is also an organizer of the original Women's Memorial March, which calls attention to missing and murdered women in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside." Perhaps there is a way to add the depth but simplify the text?

Early life: This is great context, especially including the details about her grandfather and "eight years under a deportation order." What this is missing is some basic facts—when she was born, when did she graduate from UBC, with which degree, when did she immigrate to Canada? Also, the quote "seen the insides of an inhumane detention centre" could be more neutral if paraphrased. Can you also spell out what being under a deportation order means?

Activism: This section has great information. I would recommend, however, going through to remove details about the organizations that aren't directly related to Walia and her work. I would also ensure the language is simple and meets the neutrality standard of Wikipedia. Here are some words/concepts that I noted in the first paragraph: radicalized, border imperialism and prefigurative. Also note the tense of the last sentence, first paragraph should be changed to: "Beginning in 2008, NOII-Vancouver has organized..."

More language I flagged: "Walia argues," "leaving them with little choice but... ," "fights against corporate development," "environmental exploitation" and "so-called black bloc tactics."

And quotes that should maybe be paraphrased: "debunk the sensationalism surrounding a neighbourhood deeply misunderstood, and "celebrate the complex and diverse realities of women organizing for justice," "extremely serious and fabricated charges," and "migrant justice will be short lived if gained at the expense of Indigenous self-determination."

Also the need for simplified language—here's a particularly challenging passage: "The opening chapters of the book present a theoretical analysis of “border imperialism” and its four key characteristics, which Walia outlines as: displacements and the securitization of borders, and the global forces of oppression that underpin these;[61] criminalization and incarceration of “illegal” migrants versus the acceptance of “legal” or “model” migrants; racialized hierarchies of citizenship and belonging; as well as labour precarity, which perpetuates the migrant worker’s experience as “commodified and exploitable, flexible and expendable.”[62] Later in the book, Walia discusses and chronicles numerous movements, including No One Is Illegal, that seek to undo border imperialism.[63] In doing so, she observes “the bordered logic within our own movements”[7] and emphasizes the importance of practising "an interconnected and intersectional analysis" in grassroots organizing."

Lastly, in describing many of the movements, instead of adding at the end of the sentence how Walia is involved, or leading, etc., I would lead with this context! The article is about her and information that isn't relevant to her work but simply background on programs she interacted with, should be cut.

I would cut the last paragraph under "Undoing Border Imperialism."

Overall, the writing is strong but needs to be simplified; also, many sentences are long and could be cut into two or simplified.

I might add a "Works" section as it looks like she is a prolific writer.

The References are strong and clearly support the content.

Davidajeanne (talk) 05:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your thoughtful and constructive review! MParacha (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
After reading this article I learned just how much Harsha Walia deserves to have a good Wikipedia page and I am glad you were the one who decided to write it! Walia has done several amazing things and I am glad you touched on all of them. I appreciate the examples that were given for issues that groups like No One Is Illegal and Downtown Eastside Women's Centre dealt with, however, I wish there were less examples so each example was explained further. There were several times where I read sections and it left me wanting to look up the issue further so I could learn more. A couple examples that I wish could be explained further is how Walia saw the inside of a “inhumane detention center” and the “deportation of Laibar Singh”, I wonder what work Walia directly did to try and help Singh and how her experience in a detention center lead her to be an activist.

I noticed that you cited “Undoing Border imperialism” multiple times, I am wondering if there is a way to make it show up on the “References” list only once? I also wonder for my own curiosity because I cite a book multiple times as well, and I am unsure if it is bad to have it show up on the reference list multiple times or not. In addition, I wonder if that source falls under the category of a reliable source, seeing as it is a primary source? I believe it is likely fine because there is no other way to describe the book and the theories in the book without citing it. However, you may want to consider the source further as it would be unfortunate if it was not considered reliable in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines.

Just a note on your use of “Vancouver (Coast Salish Territories)”: Though I understand that you likely mention that Vancouver is Coast Salish Territories because we are on stolen land, others may not understand this reference. I feel that it may be unnecessary, potentially distracting, and also may not fit within Wikipedia's unbiased guidelines. Maybe if you were to explain further what the difference is or how that related to Walia, the reference to Coast Salish Territories may become more understandable in context of the article. Perhaps just creating a page link for Vancouver would be enough as the Vancouver page explains some of the complexities surrounding this land.

I agree with our classmate in saying the “Lead” section could use some work. However, it is still very good and I understand the difficulty of editing down and choosing to let go of information. I also believe you have a very good neutral tone throughout which is important for an unbiased article. Overall, you did a very good job outlining Harsha Walia’s accomplishments and bringing them together into a well-rounded article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radicalarhea (talk • contribs) 00:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * thank you very much for this helpful review! I will respond to your and Davidajeanne's comments in a blog post; this is just a quick note about citing a book multiple times. If you are citing different pages of the same book and do not want to clutter the References section with the same long citation, you can create a shortened footnote. The process is explained in depth in the article titled "Help: Shortened footnotes"--I tried it and it seems to have worked. If you are citing a whole book multiple times, I would just click "re-use" when you are creating that citation. Hope that helps :) MParacha (talk) 19:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)