User talk:Will.Fleming.III/Nicaraguan Indigenous Organizations

I'm sorry for not adding my comments here yet. I hope they will be helpful. I think you've done a wonderful job with this topic, one that is extremely useful and will be fantastically helpful to so many Wikipedia users. Hoopes (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

From a stylistic point of view, I think the information you've included on Nicaraguan indigenous groups in chart form is appropriate and valuable. However, it's important to be mindful of how many hyperlinks there are to articles that don't yet exist. Note, for example, that you include both Nahoa and Nicarao, though ultimately there should only be one entry (with alternative names) for both of those. The "also known as" references to the Cacaopera/Matagalpa and the Chorotega/Mangue are also confusing, given that there should only be one hyperlink to the same article. (What may be useful in these cases would be to add hyperlinks to the pages for language families to which these groups belong.) Stylistically, many of your hyperlinks contain an additional space at the beginning. (This is a minor, cosmetic issue that is easily fixed.) Hoopes (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, in which it is best to have clear, explanatory information that is accessible to a general audience. The section During the Sandinista Revolution and the Contra War itself needs a brief introductory paragraph that provides a historical background to this period and what it meant to indigneous people. In general, it is not the best Wikipedia style to set headings or subheadings as hyperlinks, especially to articles that do not yet exist. My recommendation would be to remove these until these new articles have been developed and then to set them within the text, rather than as a heading. What's nice about these sections is that you provide good citations to relevant material, something that makes the article especially helpful. Note that there are still a number of hyperlinks whose addition would add to the article's utility. These could be added within the first sentence of each subsection, with an "encyclopedic" opening sentence that explains the general significance of each one. (For example, opening sentences that explain what MISURASATA, Los Astros, and MISURA each represent.) It's good to be careful about overuse of these, but note where they can add depth. There are also a few hyperlinks to articles that don't exist yet. Obviously, it would be good to add these at some point. However, it's important to be mindful all the while of Wikipedia's rules against original research. Hoopes (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that I've made these comments here rather than on the live Wikipedia article. You should use these as a guide for revising that. Note that the utility of that article will also be strengthened through the addition of categories (see the note at the bottom) and also adding pointers from other articles to this one (see the note at the top) Hoopes (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)