User talk:Saad.Negm/sandbox

Article Evaluation Evaluation of Wiki Article: Home economics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_economics) - Clearly, a well structured article with multiple legitimate sources - I especially like how methods in which the science of home economics is taught be listed by country - The information is precise and the paragraphs separate concise relevant information - Although there is the use of multiple adjectives, there does not seem to be a strong biased opinion for any element discussed - Most, but not all, citations were from a singular source: Goldstein, Carolyn M., 2012. Creating Consumers: Home Economists in Twentieth-Century America. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. - Multiple talk subjects have been created to improve the article - Some improvements done have been noticed as great elements of this article as I made my first pass at it - Examples of improvements are the college list and relevant links which I appreciated but did not mention above - A merger of articles has been made to benefit the individual who would search for either terms (Home Economics & Consumer Science)

Comment
Interesting article evaluation, Saad! I hope this helps you as you embark on your research and draft development for this project (in the topic area of international politics). You've taken some time to think about the article and identify areas of improvement. I wish you well as you pursue the Wikipedia project. Griffyn1987 (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello Saad! I believe your contribution to the article global south will be valuable in the overall editing of this article. You make some really valid points regarding the language used in the article. I found the same problem with mine, as these articles seem to be written down for academic research only and seemingly choose to ignore that most people do not have some of the vocabulary full of technicalities that these political articles offer. Adapting the language to a more suitable and colloquial writing style would be a valuable contribution to the preexisting article and eliminating some of the jargon and cutting straight to the point will also make this article more valuable for casual research. I really like the three additions you want to add to the article and would like to highlight the economic aspect as a well-done research asset. However, when looking at the Global South debates, I would suggest reducing some of the extensiveness of your points. Your edits aim to reduce and clarify a really good article and they do so in an effective and impressive way. However, you should keep that in mind while writing your own article and mentioning people who are not necessarily listed in Wikipedia as further information to add to the validity of your article. Overall your edits are great, they serve a useful purpose on a really relevant article that revolutionizes the term “Third World” into a more accurate global south. Keep up the good work and congratulations on choosing such a relevant and useful topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoseVasquez42 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Review Reflection
I'm very glad to have received Jose's review. I appreciate the praise but mostly the critiques. Perhaps reducing my intended elaboration on the subject distinguishing the global south from the global north is to be considered. I haven't found all that much content to really push for such a topic to be developed. This is probably for the best. With the assistance of my group, there are several other aspects we can develop and improve within the article. S. S. Negm 15:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saad.Negm (talk • contribs)