First (instructor) evaluation comments
Here are some suggestions for further improvements to your encyclopedia entry draft. Since you've only begun developing the "History" section, I'll limit my comments to that; keep in mind, though, that you still need to fill in the other sections:
- You might restructure the "History" section so that the "Founding" subsection comes first; then create additional subsections to organize your account of AI's history since the early 1960s.
- Most importantly, your encyclopedia entry should be an explanation of what the organization is all about in your own words. Way too much of what appears there now is drawn verbatim from Amnesty International's website ().
Shamira Gelbman 13:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Second (peer) evaluation comments
I echo many of professor gelbmaans comments. When I wrote my opinion essay I used a google news search and it was very helpful. This tool might help out when you begin constructing your conflict section of your article. You have a lot of good information and a solid base you just need to continue to develop your piece and develop more information resources
=Amnesty vs. other organizations?
In the human rights area, what are the differences among AI, HRW, and HR Now, to name a few? Howard C. Berkowitz 09:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
There are a lot of titles in this article, of publications and events, starting with 'Appeal for Amnesty 1961' - should these be in itallics? It would certainly make things easier to read. If not itallics then 'single' or "double" quotation marks? David Finn 08:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Even more, if they are to be mentioned, there needs to be some neutral description of them, and preferably a citation of the primary document. Policy-influencing organizations sometimes issue titles of events that are really less than slogans.Howard C. Berkowitz 09:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- A lot of this will be citable, but much of the article seems like it has been pasted from another source and I think this is what is making our article seem non-neutral. I started to rewrite some of it but I really need to decide which format to use for those titles. David Finn 09:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- As you can see from earlier posts on this page, pasting was exactly what happened -- the article was an Eduzendium class assignment. Unfortunately, one Citizen removed the Eduzendium disclaimers before the articles were reviewed for quality. Howard C. Berkowitz 12:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Since Gareth was kind enough to create the cluster, I'm doing a Politics edit on the article. What I see supports my belief that Eduzendium articles should start in a separate namespace.
This clearly had a lot of cut and paste from the organization's website. My initial approach is moving current activities to the beginning, and then start with multiple sources and internal wikilinking.
For the record, I am mixed on AI. I think they do valuable work, and I often use them as a source -- but I also am concerned that they may not always be concerned with legitimate security needs, and I suspect they irritate people with an honorable belief in national sovereignty. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
AI history versus human rights history
Reviewing the "History" part of the article, which probably can be assumed to be from the AI website, a number of UN and other international agreements are mentioned, but no specific AI involvement is described. While the website may indeed provide a history of human rights, this article is about AI and I'm going to remove actions where no direct connection to AI is given. 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)