User talk:Scortes1217/sandbox

Article Evaluation.

The article I chose to evaluate was on bushmeat.

Everything in this article was relevant to its topic however there was one particular subtopic I felt was distracting which was about Ebola. This was distracting because the author briefly discusses a publication that was made by a Nigerian news report that suggested dog meat is a healthier alternative to bushmeat. The result of this was an Ebola outbreak when three villagers shared a meal of dog meat. This example shed a light on the severity of all kinds of bush meat but was also distracting from the main topic.

This article appears to be quite neutral and does not have any biased claims, it offers multiple viewpoints along with properly sourced material to support its statements.

One of the viewpoints that appears to be under represented is about other diseases. This portion was under represented because of its brevity. Other diseases apart from HIV and Ebola are very prevalent and there are multiple sources that offer a range of information on this important subtopic. However, the article covers bush meat in a broad way so, naturally, this sub topic is short.

Each of the links in this article are wikilinks and are fully functioning, the sources cited support the claims in the article.

Each of the facts and claims listed have appropriate and reliable references, the only biases that appear are in the sources that gauge their audiences with photographs of wild life being poached for their meat. However, it is evident the author was careful to choose facts and statements that did not reveal this bias.

The references in this article do not appear to be dated however, it is evident that the article is missing many subtopics about bush meat such as its history, the cultural explanation for its perpetuation, etc.

The section regarding the conversations that other people are having about this article is interesting one person claimed this article was racist because it discusses the distinction between bushmeat and "game". The author states that people in some parts of Africa hunt for consumption and financial gain which begs the question of whether this is any different from any other part of the world where people hunt for the same reasons so there appears to be some racial undertones in this piece.

This article is related to many topics regarding conservation which we will be learning about throughout the semester.

We have briefly discussed the topic of bush meat in class however the difference between this article versus the way in which we have discussed this topic in class lies mainly in the information we covered in class versus the information offered in this article. In class we discussed bush meat from a cultural standpoint, this article covers mainly the diseases and geographical hunting prevalence. Scortes1217 (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi Stephanie!

I found your draft to be very informative. Your writing is concise and straight to the point. Also, you maintained a neutral tone. Overall, I think your additions strengthen your chosen articles.

I made a few grammatical edits to your additions. Here are some other notes:

I would consider distinguishing biltong hunting from trophy hunting in the lead of the article. I think the placement of your addition seems somewhat awkward.

I think it would be beneficial to relate wildlife conservation back to game reserves, though I think the content of your addition well written.

I hope this helps!

ConserveMoore (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC) Erin