User talk:S.R. Summerfield/sandbox

Lots here! Commenting only on the intro for now - this is comprehensive coverage. There may need to be some secondary sources to establish notability - Hayner is one, of course. Dwebsterbu (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Overall
 * What you have written so far is very well researched and well written. The total length of the article seems short, the main critique would be to add additional text and elaborate on what you already have.
 * Need a References section heading in your Contents
 * Large amount of the written text is in quotations (eg. half of the Creation of Commission Section, the entire Findings and Recommendations Section), it would be better if you could add in other text to balance it out, particularly in the two mentioned sections.
 * Good visuals
 * You alternate between Mauritius and the Mauritius → make sure there is consistency
 * Make sure there is consistency in the tense used (i.e. present, past, future)
 * Introduction seems a bit long compared to the total length the article.
 * Consider adding the section on the commission members in the introduction to the Commissioners section

Creation of Commission → consider altering the title to: Creation of the Commission
 * “The commission consisted if…” → change to “of”
 * “…who were appointed by the then President Sir Aneroof Jugnauth.” → awkward sentence (“the then”)
 * Why was the inclusions of reparations a controversial decision? Explain further
 * “Despite the advanced brought by the last century many of Agro-Malagasay origin are living in povery…” consider changing the sentence structure and clarify meaning → what is advanced?

History and Slavery and Indentured Servitude in Mauritius


 * The French were the next colonial power to enter the Mauritians → is this the proper format?
 * Make sure there is consistency in capitalization of Islands
 * Consider changing to past tense: “the upper classes received 126 hectares and the soldiers and workers were given 63 hectares”
 * Consider changing to past tense/sentence structure: “the territory continued to rely upon slave labour until the abolishment of slavery in the Empire in the 1830s”

Commissioners Mandate
 * Elaborate on the Commissioner’s section → seems unfinished
 * “The Commission had as its mandate:” → awkward, consider changing (ex. The Mandate of the commission is as follows:)
 * Make sure to cite where the mandate bullet points are from
 * Period after the final bullet-point

Activities of the Commission
 * Lacking information → would be better if there was a bit more to include, maybe mention how they covered the large time frame with the investigations

Impact and Criticism
 * Final sentence seems a bit too informal, i.e. “been so slow in coming”


 * Add a label or heading to the two links included at the bottom of the page.

Efingler12 (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review
I agree with everything covered above. Still, I will try adding my own insight.

This is a well-researched article which relies on several primary as well as secondary sources. It provides unbiased and thorough information about the commission. The content is neutral. I appreciate your attention to details, for example in providing the names of the commissioners. However, I agree that you should elaborate on the article as a whole and on some sections in particular. You should also give a heading to the “reference” section.

The only real issue here is about conveying the information. As stated above, there are a few typos throughout the article (for example, in the lead section alone: “consisted if” instead of “consisted of” or “oversea” instead of “oversee”). You also need to be consistent with the way you name the country and the tense you use. Additionally, consider using less quotations and instead explaining the author’s point with your own words. Finally, I would advise to reshape the structure of the article by prioritizing sections and subsections: it would gain in clarity. You could for instance merge the “commissioners”, “mandate” and “activities” paragraphs into subsections of a same part about the commission itself. Also, consider switching the order of your first two parts: you should provide historical background before going into the creation of the commission.

In conclusion, this is a very promising draft. With a little more details, reshaping and rewriting, it should become a great article. Just make sure, when you do, that you balance the coverage of the article: as it is now, some sections seem thin, especially by comparison with the lead section. Xialouf (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

comments on final draft
This is good stuff, excellent article in the making. I am thrilled to see images. And it looks like you have been busy elsewhere on Wikipedia....

You have the benefit of some excellent and careful peer review suggestions, many of which I would echo. Paraphrase some quotes. Conversely, should “eyewash” be a quote? Findings and Recommendations – this section still seems a bit in process. You could "listify" it, Wikipedia loves a good list. Otherwise a good article.

You should go ahead and move your article to the Wikipedia mainspace. Tips on doing this appear in the “Moving Out of Your Sandbox” handout, at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Classroom_handout_-_moving_out_of_your_sandbox.pdf

You may also wish to consult, before the final deadline at the end of next week, the handout on “Polishing Your Article” at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Polishing_your_articles.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwebsterbu (talk • contribs) 20:07, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Dwebsterbu (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC)