User talk:Victoria jensen93/sandbox
Overall, this Wikipedia article is well written. It meets the requirement of the assignment. The introduction clearly states who the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize were in 1994 and gives a good few sentence summary. The sections of the article cover what the reader would expect when looking up this topic on Wikipedia. There is some background on the NPP which may or may not be necessary to this article. There is a separate article which talks about the prize much more in-depth, and the author can link to that page to give the readers even more information. Since there is already an article written about the NPP, it may be more important to tell the reader specific details about the 1994 NPP instead. Where did the ceremony take place, who was nominated, for example. WP: the perfect article does say that an article needs to be "self-contained" so the reader doesn't have to read many other articles extensively, but I think the background section would be better served in this article if described specifically the NPP of 1994 instead. The section on the Oslo Accords feels necessary because the Oslo Accords are lot to understand, and it would be better for the reader to just have a summary in this article, rather than directing them to read the entire article on the Oslo Accords. This section keeps the article self-contained because the Oslo Accords is a complicated subject. The subsections about each winner are very clear and serve a definite purpose. I wonder if the controversy section could use a few more sentences. It would be nice to have a short little summary there, but I do not think that is feasible considering the size of the issue. Linking to the full article of the Arab-Israeli Conflict is better than giving an incomplete summary. The article is nicely organized. The Nobel Prize sidebar make the article look serious and official. There is a picture on the NPP page of the 1994 winners. If it is possible to put that picture in this page, the article would benefit. There are lots of links to other pages throughout the article, which is great because it helps meet the standards for the perfect article. Looking closer, it may be helpful to add the names of the recipients in the overview. In the background section, it might be clearer if in the last paragraph the author rephrased the first sentence. It would flow better and be more like Wikipedia if the article says something along the lines of "The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded in Oslo, Norway" and then explains why. A little suggestion--in paragraph two of the Oslo Accords section, the article may want to say "Oslo 1, ....., was a result..." Paragraph 2's first sentence should be looked at a little closer. Perhaps say "Oslo II is officially named..." The sections on the winners do their job, especially since they are linked to full pages on the person. It does seem that, for example, Shimon Peres's section has information from only one source. It would be good to put in another source there just for credibility, on all of the winners' sections. Overall well written and sounds like a Wikipedia article.
Peer comments from AWDeconomicseditor (talk) 00:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC):
- So, overall, I think you should model your article on one of the existing articles about specific Nobel Peace Prizes. My judgement is that this is the most relevant example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize
Some of my reasoning for this is that the 2009 prize, like the 1994 prize, was received differently in different parts of the world. It seems like you could structure your article into the same or similar sections as the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize article: a Nomination and announcement section and a Reactions sections.
The reaction section could talk about how the award was received in Palestinian society, Israeli society, and then around the world in general.
It could also mention some of the controversy about the award mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_controversies#Peace
As a model, I would look at how the 2009 controversy section relates to the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize#Other_reactions
Once you have made your article a bit more like other similar articles, I recommend PUBLISHING IT. Why do I recommend this? Because other editors (who may have more Wikipedia experience than you) can make edits to your piece that might improve it.
Here are some other comments:
- Background on Nobel Prize section should be removed. That information belongs in the Nobel Prize article or the Article on the Nobel Peace Prize in general.
- There are already articles Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, and Yitzhak Rabin. It might be better to not have individual sections for each one. If you do have individual sections for each one, the sections on them should deal primarily with why they were awarded the prize.
- There is also already an article on the Oslo Accords. I think your section should talk about the significance of the accords and why the Nobel committee thought that the winners' work toward making the accords was worthy of the prize.
Perhaps talk about the first intifada or something. Provide context for WHY the Oslo Accords were significant enough to get the attention of the Nobel committee.
I think this could be a good article and I wish you luck!