User talk:Sophiafossali/sandbox

Jose Chitala's Peer Review

I believe that this article is strong in terms of information. It feels as though it covers essential points that make understanding the overall concept possible. Specifically, it is great that the writer included the types of climate-related disasters in the first paragraph, rather than leaving it solely as “climate-related disasters”. The inclusion of the date when the president declared a national disaster is a great touch, because it shows the effectiveness of being specific and fact-oriented on Wiki.

In terms of things to improve I identified the need graphs or studies that demonstrate claims about climate like "climate variability in 1990" that’s included in the first paragraph. Additionally, when the write says "Coubibaly et al.", this does not feel appropriate for Wikipedia as it does for an academic paper. A solution could be a strong paraphrase and including a citation (if Coubibaly et al. is a reliable source AKA it has been peer-reviewed a lot.) Another place I would suggest changes is in the “ecology” section. Here people will be looking for descriptions of the ecological factors, instead of too deep of an analysis into the effects. Lastly, I identified some large claims that are not cited. For example, "Indeed, the effects of agricultural slowdown and water scarcity threaten the progress made by Malawi over the past decade." This seemed like a personally-conceived conclusion and there was no citation to support it. As to the most important thing that the author could do to improve the article, I believe that phrasing can be cleaned up a bit and made more concise and flowing. Also, to reiterate, the author must not draw many conclusions that seem like they come out of your own formulations.

So far I believe that the structure of the article is good, as the first section provides a background of what happened ecological in Malawi and then led into the social and economic effects on the country. With that said, in order to maximize this good structure a change I would suggest a flow like this for the section "2015 Food Crisis": General background information involving the natural disasters-> General information about the crops that were affected-> Specific statistics like those in the third paragraph-> Close on the effects for people (in terms of how they'd make money and how their health would be affected).

To end this review, I was impressed by how the author plans to use their sections and subsections, and I will be strategic with my own sections and subsections. A second thing I noticed was the use of sources such as non-profits for information. At first glance this seems unfeasible for my article as my article is from the 1970's and information from non-profits may be that easily accessible. However, I may look into any potential information I might find via non-profits or government records. Jchitala (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)Jose Chitala

Herry's Peer Review

Hi Sophia,

I think you did a great job of providing information. Your explanations on how the variability affected the Malawian food production and the population’s nutrition is clear and informative. The 2015 food crisis is an excellent follow-up illustration that describes the economic and social effects of climate variability in the country. I love that you have incorporated multiple sources to strengthen your points; including specific dates, numbers, and statistics makes your entry look more evident and precise to the readers.

The first thing I think you can improve is working on the headings of the paragraphs. Heading sections could make them more conspicuous and improve the structure of your article. Also, adding a descriptive title might be beneficial. A good title would give your article a strong first impression to readers and catch their attention by creating anticipation and expectation. Generally, the article is well-organized. As a reader and a political science student, I would like to know more about how the government and the international institutions responded to address the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herry23 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)