Talk:Polyethnicity/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: @harej 04:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Peregrine Fisher has been doing a good job at #GA review. Disregard this. @harej

GA review

Hi. I'll reviewing your article for good article status. I'll make a few comments here on improvements needed, and after you respond, I'll make more comments. I haven't looked to closely yet, but I think you're pretty close to a GA. Good job. As you deal with each comment, you can add a little {{done}} template (looks like  Done) and sign it so we know what's left to be done.

The title in the "References" section need to be alphabetized. DoneNec26 (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't reuse the same refs in a row. Just put one at the end of what it applies to. For instance: "Polyethnicity relates to the ability of individuals to identify themselves with more than one ethnicity or identity.[1] This definition springs from the commonly understood definition of ethnicity being the shared ancestry of people.[1]" only needs the "[1]" ref once at the end since it covers both sentences. DoneDanabodnar (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Everything in the article needs to be covered by a ref. For instance: "The United States does not have an official language, but English is the de facto national language." should have a ref added, or the statement removed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding not using the same refs in a row, I'd say this applies to quotations (as it is obvious where a quotation begins and ends). But the example you cite is not a quotation. Currently the both sentences are referenced to the same source. But what if we remove the first ref, and somebody adds a new sentence in the middle? Without checking the article's history, the reader will not know if the first sentence is referenced to the first or the second source (providing that the second sentence is referenced at all). Thus I favor referencing every single sentence. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really care, but it's frowned upon at FA, which kind of sets the standards. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I am pretty sure nobody raised the issue during the review of my latest FAC few months ago (just look at the second part of the first para or most of the second para here). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends on who's reviewing. Here's a conversation on it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which seems to boil to "no consensus..." :) In such a situation, I prefer to err on the side of caution - its easier to remove refs than to try to figure out which parts are referenced and which are not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the compliments already Peregrine, we'll work hard to make changes as you suggest them so that we can be wrap up the GA process quickly! My only questions is this; for a sentence like the one you stated "The United States does not have an official language, but English is the de facto national language." isn't exactly a reference-able statement. We can't reference that English isn't the official language, because it's not in law that it isn't. Which, by it's very definition makes it "de facto". So, we do we use a reference like the one here, where we state that most of the country (96% as it appears) speak English well, or very well; and then assume people can equate that fact to it being de facto as a fact? I don't want to remove it entirely, and it's kind of a hard sentence to reference! Nec26 (talk) 02:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It has to come from a secondary source, like a book, magazine, newspaper. This would cover it, for instance. I just did this google book search to find it. If a source cannot be found, then it's best just to remove any associated statements. But, with google, you can find a source for most things pretty easily. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! Referenced... I'll go ahead and try to find ones now and reference them. Thanks. Nec26 (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. I still haven't actually read the article, but another quick thing to think about is whether the whole article is summarized in the lead, per WP:LEAD. It seems like the first sentence that gave the definition has been removed. That may require adjustment, too. Also, merge any one sentence paragraphs into other paragraphs so that every paragraph is at least two sentences long, and preferably 3 or more sentences long. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I fixed the lead. Please let me know what you think. I also went through and referenced every sentence, though it's entirely possible I may have missed one... haha. I also was wondering if I could get clarification on this: if multiple sentences (albeit two or five) have the same source as a reference, do you or do you not want us to put the reference tag there? There are a few that have 2 sentences, and one in particular (Southeast Asia, I believe) that have a lot... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nec26 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Leave the multiple refs. We'll defer to your teacher on this one.

I would be nice if you could create an external link section, if there's some website that gives more information on this topic that would be good to include. If they don't exist, don't worry about it.

Let's look at some of the prose.

"Polyethnicity occurs in societies and it is usually specifically found in countries or other specific geographic regions.[1] Polyethnicity occurs" - This is choppy and repetitive. The repetitiveness is the use of the words "Polyethnicity" and "occurs" in two sentences that are next to each other. The choppinessis is that the sentence structure is not varied enough. Here's a tutorial on it. If you can, look through the article, and make sure that the same words aren't used too close to each other, and that some sentences begin with their subject, others don't, some are simple, and some have multiple parts seperated by commas. It's looking really good. Keep it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick are you editing the lead section right now? because I was trying to make changes when I went to say it it put that message up again. I changed the wording a different way than you did, although yours sounds lovely. What are you editing right now nick? to make sure that I will not change the wording of the same section. Just let me know when you are done if you want and then I can go through and read it and pick up other things. Jeh123 (talk) 05:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, Peregrine Fisher. I just reworded the lead and made it less choppy. Is that better wording? I also went through the entire article and fixed the footnotes so that none were used in consecutive sentences. Are there still enough citations? Danabodnar (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Things are looking pretty good. I'm going to go sentence by sentence for a little bit to give you an idea of what to look for in the rest of the article. At this point, it looks like you guys need to work on copy editing it a bit.

"weakening of each societies strengths.[9] and also a belief that political-ethnic issues in countries with" - Punctuation or capitalization problem.

"Conceptually, all we can do" - "we" doesn't work in an encyclopedia.

"Conceptually, all we can do is record times when conditions for polyethnicity are met, although it is unknown if polyethnicity actually developed." - Needs a reference.

"The earliest recorded time of trade existed between Sumer and Indus Valley in the 3rd millennium BC.[11]" - Single sentence paragraph.

"Ancient Egypt was one of the first known civilizations to begin coalescing different regions and creating a vast area in which trade, conquest and immigration were all prevalent.[12]" - Same thing.

Just guessing, but it looks like about 1 in 2 sentences needs a minor tweak to get it up to speed. So, I recommend that you guys look through the article and try and find 0 to 3 problems within each paragraph, and make adjustments. If you do that, I should then be able to go through, find a few issues that are easy to fix, and you've got a GA. (I still haven't read the article, because I don't want to read it until all the little things are fixed, and then I can look at the actual content). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright! I went ahead and removed that stuff in conceptual history. We can't necessarily prove polyethnicity there. It's ancient civilizations, but we could rewrite it to Egypt and the Mamluks (we have research on that) taking over the government and ultimately causing polyethnicity. This is before the first world system, butttt, there has to have been documented times before that. I just don't know how to go back to the beginning and be able to show documentation... blah. I'm gonna go ahead and read through the whole article too to make sure it's not errorfull. I'll post back soon. Nec26 (talk) 07:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I went through and edited a lot of stuff. I reworded a bunch of sentences. I'm sure there's still some problems. But I did what I could! I have to sleep now... Looking forward to getting this over with!Nec26 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and tried to find online links that talked about this topic more, but I don't really see a lot. All I really see is the McNeil speech (one of our sources) and the Blackwell Encyclopedia Online (one of our sources). They are readings about Polyethnicity, but nonetheless sources. Do you think they would still fit into what the external links section should include? And I'll keep looking too...Nec26 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There are scholars who argue that the first world system existed in the times of the Sumer Empire and Indus Valley Civilization; discussions of polyethnicity may touch even on more ancient times. Regarding finding more sources, don't forget about Google Scholar and Google Books; see also my advice on getting extra help here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

More GA comments

"Polyethnicity divides nations, complicating the politics of polyethnic nations as local and national governments attempt to satisfy all ethnic groups," - I'm not sure we need "polyethnic nations", since that's what were already talking about.  Done Nec26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"attempt to satisfy all ethnic groups, the majority as well as minority." - "the minority"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Many politicians in countries attempt" - Is "in countries" needed?  Done Nec26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalism arguments also play a large part in the political debates around the world" - Sounds funny.  Done Nec26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"The culturally plural state" - Maybe "Culturally plural states"  Done Nec26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"It is also important to note that ethnic parties" - Probably don't need "It is also important to note that"  Done Nec26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Take the Flemish and Walloon nationalist parties in Belgium for example." - Too informal, and doesn't explain adequately.  Done Nec26 (talk) 07:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"The United States is a nation founded on the basis of different ethnicities" - May not need "on the basis of"  Done Jeh123 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ruben Navarrette (June 2007). "Language debate only divides us further". Oakland Tribune." - needs a "Retrieved" date  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Many immigrants have come from Latin America and South America whom are native Spanish speakers" - Not sure "whom" is the right word.  Done Jeh123 (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"in the past centuries to become a significant minority and even majority in many areas of the Southwest particularly." - Awkward and "particularly" not needed.  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's put all references after punctuation. For instance, "Polyethnicity occurs when multiple ethnicities inhabit a given area, specifically through means of immigration, intermarriage,[2] trade, conquest,[3] and post-war land-divisions.[4]" should be "Polyethnicity occurs when multiple ethnicities inhabit a given area, specifically through means of immigration, intermarriage, trade, conquest, and post-war land-divisions.[2][3][4]" The "United States" section has a lot of refs in the wrong place, as well.  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"In Southern states like New Mexico, the Spanish speaking population exceeds 40%." - In NM? Or all South West states? Or what?  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Disputes have emerged over language policy[18], since a sizable part of the population, and in many areas, the majority of the population, speak Spanish as a native language, the demand for legislation and every day things like road signs to be in both Spanish and English." - Unclear, and "things" isn't a good work for an encyclpedia.  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"It has evolved into an ethnic conflict between the pluralists who support bilingualism and linguistic access and the assimilationists who strongly oppose this and lead the official English movement." - What's up with the italics? Did you mean to use bluelinks?  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Canada has suffered many issues between the French speakers and English speakers" - What issues?  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"The main separatist party, Parti Québécois, attempted to gain sovereignty twice and failed by a narrow 0.6% margin the second referendum." - What year was that?  Done Nec26 (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Canada" and "Belgium" look good. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try an continue the detailed review soon. But since you're doing such a good job, I'll add a couple things that are easy for me to spot.

Refs 19, 20, 21 need to be formatted.  Done Nec26 (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"New Mexico has a non-binding "English Plus" resolution, officially endorsing multilingualism." - Looks like an unrefed statement.  Done Nec26 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the refs are funky. I'll give some examples, then you should make sure that the rest are all right.

"Arabandi, Bhavani (2007). George Ritzer. ed. Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology: Polyethnicity. Blackwell Pub.. pp. Blackwell Reference Online.. ISBN 1405124334." - pp.?, Pub...?  Done Nec26 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Jean-François Cardin. "Parti Québécois". Retrieved 2009-11-19." - Needs publisher. All refs should have a publisher. If you have to do whatever.com, that's fine.  Done Nec26 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So every website should have a publisher, even if it is the main website that article is linked to? Nec26 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I think so. It might be something like Main page, Google.com. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well I went ahead and did all that, then.Nec26 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the Retrieved dates.  Done Nec26 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC) - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, the alphabetizing of the References isn't perfect yet. And, some refs that have the author don't have it included, like this one. You'll probably need to go through the References section and look at each one and make sure it's OK. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I knew something wasn't right when there was only one "L" title. I'll fix that real quick. Uhm. I did "the's" as "t"s and I don't know if that's the right way, so just let me know and I'll change it whichever way. But for now all the The's are alphabetized under T. Nec26 (talk) 03:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"the"'s should be alphabetized based on whatever word follows "the". Also, last names should be listed first, with a comma and then the first name. "Lee, J.; Bean" should be "Bean, Lee, J.". Not sure what the semicolon what doing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll rearrange the the's. But the first source is a coauthor (coauthors are apparently done with semicolons) and neither of them have first names. So it looks weird... but yeah. His first name is "J." his last is "Lee" and the other guy is Bean. Nec26 (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I see. Do what you can so that the first letter of each line in alphabetized. I'm not that great with these things. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I need some clarification. I have everything alphabetized by title now (they should be perfect), but what do you mean by "he first letter of each line in alphabetized". Whatever it is, I'll do it! I just want to make sure I do it to your specifications, thanks! Nec26 (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Well, right now it goes L, A, B, S, A for Lee, Angela, BO2001, Sharon, Arabandi. I'd like to see A, B, C, D, etc. I guess use whatever letter they're filed under in Notes section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetized by author  Done Nec26 (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks a lot better.

""The Calgary Declaration: Premiers' Meeting". http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/. September 14, 1997. Retrieved 2009-11-22." Shouldn't have a bare URL. If that the publisher, just to exec.gov.nl.ca.  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"www.jrank.org" if that's the publisher, just do JRank.org or whatever. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Found a new book source. Nec26 (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

JRank is a search engine, so I am pretty sure it cannot be a publisher. Publishers should not be weblinks; http://www.exec.gov.nl.ca/exec/ has a proper name (Executive... and so on). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"polyethnicity" is used 8 times in the lead. That's still a bit too much.  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Due to the diverse population and peripheral zones" - What are "peripheral zones"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"it was nearly impossible to create a strong centralized state." - Makes it sound like they finally succeeded.  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily like what I added, but it gets the point across. I feel like the "nearly impossible" implies that it may have eventually succeeded-- besides the fact that the rest of the paragraph explains it did. But, you do know more about GAs than I. Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ethiopia has a great sense of nationalism because their ancient history and ties to ancient religious figures, such as Solomon." - "because of"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointless sentence really. Removed entirely. Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Nationalism was only discussed within radical student groups prior to 1974 and by the late 20th century Ethiopia was forced to modernize their political system." - I don't understand how the first half and the second half of the sentence are connected.  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding the "Ethiopia" section. Try and get it so each sentence leads to the next one, and the paragraph tells a story that's easy to understand. After that, I'll look at it again.  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much rewarded most of it. Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Because the nation was under the control of basically French rule, the Spanish eventually formed coalitions of ethnic groups to reclaim their own political representation, instead of the current French political system in power." - "basically" isn't a good word. Is "eventually" needed? The sentence isn't direct enough.  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"In Southeast Asia polyethnicity is certainly present due to the intertwining of people from both the Chinese and Indian civilizations." - "certainly" probably not needed. "present due to the intertwining of people" is awkward.  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"This region has contributed quite a few aspects to the" - "quite a few aspects" not needed  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Southeast Asia" section is confusing like the "Ethiopia" section. Make it easier to understand.  Done Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I only changed a little. It's comma heavy (because of the lists of countries) but I think it seems pretty straightforward now). Nec26 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, more than half way through the article. Keep it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Even more GA comments

"Polyethnicity, over time, can change the way societies practices certain cultural norms" - "practice"?, is "certain" needed?  Done Danabodnar (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Polyethnicity rose from the belief that people can identify themselves with more than one ethnicity." - That's only one of the meanings of polyethnicity, correct? If so make that clear.  Done Nec26 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we've already stated that intermarriage causes polyethnicity, I guess we don't even have to mention it here. Since we're talking about intermarriage.

"increase in intermarriages and in the United States this has led to a blur in ethnic lines" - "blurring of"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"In 2000, Multiracial Americans numbered 6.8 million or 2.4% of the population" - Is that the real number, or just how many self identified?  Done Nec26 (talk) 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"because blacks hace a "legacy of slaver," a history of discrimination" - "slaver"?  Done Danabodnar (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"They are considered to be polyethnic due to the difference in race, ethnicity, language or background." - "differences"?  Done Danabodnar (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"While there are many examples of polyethnic forces, the most prominent are among the largest armed forces in the world, including the United States, the former USSR, and China." - Makes it sound like the United States is an armed force.  Done Danabodnar (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"phenomena" - Is the plural what we want here?  Done Danabodnar (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Military" paragraph feels like it needs another sentence or two. Didn't the military lead integration in the US, and maybe other countries?  Done Nec26 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Scholars, such as Wilmot Robertson in the Ethnostate" - Should there be a "the" before "Ethnostate"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"He states his opposition saying that sum of all the parts (within a polyethnic culture) are not greater than each of the parts' own abilities" - "abilities" seems a odd word. What exactly was greater?  Done Nec26 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Thomson points out the benefits in some level (albeit small) in separatist policies." - Should it be "of separatist"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"He argues the benefits of allowing such ethnic groups, like the Amish and the Hutterites in the United States and Canada, or the Sami in Norway, to live on the edges of cultures or governance.[10] These are such ethnic groups that would prefer to retain their ethnic identity, and thus prefer separatist policies for themselves." - Not a fan of the word "such", also this part is not clear.  Done Nec26 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to clear it up as best as I could. Let me know. Nec26 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And, the map of Asia shows too much, I think. What about File:Location Southeast Asia.svg  Done Danabodnar (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to left side Nec26 (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's the end. If you can fix all the stuff I mentioned above, I'll give it another read through, and we'll be very close to done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the comments at the end of the section above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Missed those, lol. I'll do 'em now. Thanks Nec26 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Voilà. All done!! Nec26 (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ethiopia is a polyethnic nation consisting of about 80 different ethnic groups and 84 indigenous languages." - Is it "about"? It seems pretty specific.  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Due to the diverse population and rural zones" - Should "zones" be "areas"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"though it was eventually accomplished through political evolution." - "accomplished" or "occurred"?

I think accomplished is the optimal word here. Because we are talking about the difficulty of it actually working, it makes it goal oriented (I feel anyways) and, thus, accomplished seems far more fitting. Occurred makes it sound like it just magically happened one day.

"A military regime named the Dergue" - "the Dergue military regime"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"took control with a Marxist-Leninist ideology" - "with a" sounds funny.

What would you prefer here? I honestly feel as if "with a" doesn't sound funny at all... so I'm not really sure what to change it to / what the necessity of the change is.

"rejecting compromise for any nationality issues." - Should "for" be "over"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ethiopia suffered a series of famines and after the USSR collapsed, they lost their aid from the Soviet Union and the Dergue regime collapsed." - Two "collapsed"s too close together.  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Eventually Ethiopia restabilized and adopted a modern political system of federal parliamentary republic." - Sounds funny.  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"It was still impossible to create a central government holding all power, so the government was torn." - Awkward.

Which part of the this sentence is awkward?

"There is now a central federal government presiding over ethnically-based regional states" - "The central federal government noew presides over ethnically-based regional states"  Done Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, so that's how many issues were left in the "Ethiopia" section. It looks like the "Southeast Asia" section has about the same number of problems, so go through it sentence by sentence and make sure each is worded as well as it can be. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've mulled over it sooo many times already. So much that it all just sounds right to me. I took out the excessive commas in the lists and just went with parenthesis but, like I said, I just can't work with that section anymore. Can anyone else do it? Nec26 (talk) 09:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Nick, I read it and edited some things, but it still does not sound perfect. let me know what you think! Jeh123 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty close.

"In Southeast Asia polyethnicity is present due to the interaction between people of Chinese and Indian descent.[citation needed] The continental area (Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam) generally practices Theravada Buddhism.[42]" - Find a source for the citation needed, or why not just make it "In Southeast Asia the continental area (Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam) generally practices Theravada Buddhism.[42]"  Done

Guys, I think we should just delete that sentence. I don't have these sources, and the polyethnicity is clearly explained enough without that sentence which the rest of the paragraph doesn't really elaborate on. Danabodnar (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed it around. The ideas are related, so let me know what you think. Nec26 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Indigenous ethnic relations arose from regional variations of cultural and linguistic groups, while immigrant minorities developed as quickly (especially the Chinese)." - I don't know what this sentence means. Make it clearer.  DoneNec26 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"An increase in intermarriages in the United States this has led to the blurring of ethnic lines." -"this" not needed.  Done Danabodnar (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"This is the case, the authors argue, because blacks hace" - Who is the author? "hace"?  Done Nec26 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I fixed 'have,' but I don't know who 'the authors' are. It seems that it was just added in there, but this is a direct quote so we can't elaborate on who those authors are. Justine this is you! Danabodnar (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The authors and Lee and Bean. We already have them referenced for what Arabandi is referencing in his article. I went ahead and put in brackets (how you would usually edit a direct quote) but I don't know if we have to do something specific because we are referencing the same article Arabandi is referencing for something else. Nec26 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good job on the Military section. Concise and informative.

"He believes that within a polyethnic culture the sum of all the ethnicities, the nation or region as a whole, is less capable of cultural culmination than each of the individual ethnicities that make it up." - Not clear what this is talking about.  Done

I reworded the sentence a little more, making it more direct, and added another sentence for clarification. Let me know if it makes more sense now! Nec26 (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, fix those few things and we're done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

GA comments

This topic is important and interesting and definitely deserves a GA level articleon wikipedia. However, I don't think this article is ready to be a GA. I think it fails fundamentally on criteria 3 "Broad in Coverage". To me this is due to a fundamentally flawed decision about how the article should be structured and what it should cover. Basically - it will never be able to provide a broad perspective of the ground it attempots to cover. It fails to provide a good definition of polyethnicity - because it doesn't discuss any of the problems with defining "ethnicity", or the various theories of ethnicity. It also doesn't specify which concept of ethnicity is used in the article (see ethnicity for an overview of these rather substantial problems). It also fails to distinguish sufficiently between polyethnicity as a concept in sociology (which may arguably have been invented by McNeill) and polyethnicity as a phenomena which is something much bigger than that. Furthermore it seems to attempt to give a global perspective on polyethnicity in the politics but instead picks seemingly random countries and treats their politically related problems on a very superficial level. In short I don't believe this article is a suitable candidate for GA status - but rather a suitable candidate forbeing rewritten and restructured. I would be happy to provide commentaries and assistance once a rewrite is under way. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're comments kinda sound like FA comprehensive rather than GA broad. It's part of a class assignment that ends on the 8th, so I doubt they're going to be able to completely rewrite and expand 3-fold in time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I realize that I am not reviewing the article and the final decision is up to you (I think you should have conducted the review at the review page by the way), but I don't think it passes the requirement of adressing the most immportant aspects of the topic - I think it fails to establish its topic correctly and to give sufficient background of its history, development, and related scholarship, I also think it goes into unnnecessary detail on the specific kinds of polyethnicity and its consequences in certain countries. The fact that this is a class assignment explains to me why the article is weirdly structured, from the viewpoint of how articles are usually written here - but if I were they're teacher I'd certainly want my students to give a the reader a better definition and summary of the topic before going into details about its political ramifications in modern countries. I wouldn't promote t - if you want to you are of course free to do it.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW. The article also fails on criteria 1. The lead is not a summary of the entire article - in fact it doesn't mention most of what the rest of the article is about or prepare the reader for it. Read WP:LEAD to check how a lead for a GA should be written. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(reset indent) Hi Maunus, we appreciate your opinion and observations. It's nice to see more perspective on the article. As previously stated, we know that polyethnicity is an extremely broad topic. We have done a lot of research for this project, and we are prepared to defend what the article says.

• The article doesn't discuss the problem with defining ethnicity. Wouldn't that be an argument better placed on the ethnicity page anyways?
• We selected a few "seemingly random" countries to show the effect polyethnicity has on governments (as the section is presented). We are not foolish; we know we could represent all governments that have had conflicts because of polyethnicity. We decided that that was not enough reason to provide specific examples of its effects on politics. Especially seeing as how Wikipedia is a growing phenomenon, the article can only improve with more examples as time progresses and Wikipedia grows.
• I do not see the difference between polyethnicity as a sociological concept and polyethnicity as phenomenon, is the phenomenon not just the concept in practice?
• The lead is probably off. Since it was written the article has undergone a lot of changes. Thanks for bringing that to our attention. We are going to have to check it out again and probably fiddle with it.

Lastly, I just wanted to say that some of your comments are coming off a little rude. I'm sure you're not doing that intentionally. I merely just wanted to let you know that I can read everything you're saying, and some of that could have been worded a little more nicely. Thank you for your time and comments Nec26 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting points. I do think that expanding the "Conceptual history" section and discussing the definition(s) of polyethnicity would be welcome. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that ethnicity is such a fuzzy concept that you cannot write anything meaningful about it without first giving your reader the benefit of kowing which definition you use. For example it seems that Dr. McNeill may work with a modernist constructivist understanding of ethnicity (e.g. he believes that modern ethnic nations area product of historical processes in the 18th century), the article fleetingly mentions the possibility of situationalist ethnicity (when it mentions the possibility of one person identifying with multiple ethnicities) - but the article otherwise seems to adopt a simplistic view of ethnicity being more or less equal to linguistic group. Never does it explain or justify this. Also it mentions that polyethnicity as a word can also refer to one person identifying with multiple ethnicities, but then goes on to treat only the political polyethnicity without explanation.

As Piotrus I think the conceptual history section is very important and not very well written. It basically seems to say that McNeil invented polyethnicity and that no other scholar has said any meaningful about it before or after him (it doesn't mention any one else). It also seems to be a self contradiction to at once say that polyethnicity has throughout history been the prevailing form of society and then start talking about how it complicates politics. Following McNeil's train of thought what complicated politics was the birth of the ideal of the homogeneous ethnic state.

The history section should also give a much better overview of how polyethnicity has been the standard throughout time and explain the claim of how supposedly the ideal of homogeneous nation states emerged and changed that picture. And it should show the conflict between the homogeneous ideal and the heterogeneous reality in today's world. It should do this by integrating the viewpoints in the criticism section (which seems weirldy appended anyway) into the history section and supply more discussion of the history of ethnicity with examples.

Small stuff: There are references in the article that are not in the reference section for example Safran 2000. There are incomplete references for example "japan times". Is the right name Baramendi or Beramendi? It is a selfcontradiction to say first that polyethnic armies go back to the Mongol khans (and that polyethnicity has been the prevailing sociological model throughout history) and then go on to say that the US were one of the first armies to integrate multiple ethnicities.

I am sure you have done a good job of researching - but the structure of the article is sloppy and does not appear very well thought out yet. And as I have mentioned i don't find it broad enough. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

McNeil is seen as one of the most influential (if not the most influential) scholars writing on polyethnicity: here's a ref that attributes the term specifically to him: [1]. Some others: [2], [3], [4]. In either case, there are still several days for improvement of this article and I hope in those few days it will see some significant edits (although I do agree that there are some issues that would be relevant for Featured class, but are beyond Good class). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to pass this article. It is well written, verifiable, broad, neutral, stable, and has some free iamges. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)