Talk:Irrigation in Peru

Review

Please, review Irrigation in Peru and share your comments regarding editing, content and/or applications. Anunezsanchez (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would add as an historic fact that the sharp decrease of the indigenous population following the events of the hispanic conquest (mainly due to the new diseases brought by the europeans) was a mayor contributor to the failure of the irrigation infrastructure, an analog process to what happened to mesopothamia after the mongolic and timurid conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.108.219 (talk) 21:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Page references

This is a well informed and heavily referenced article which are good things. However, it desperately needs page references. Wikipedia articles are required to be verifiable thus, readers should be able to compare the article with its sources. For that it is necessary to provide page references so that readers know in what part of books or pdf documents to look for. Also, as a minor suggestion, it might be a good idea to have the "References" section above the "Sources" section as this is the standard academic practice. --Victor12 (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments before this article gets reviewed

This article is using a unique referencing system that I have never seen in a Wikipedia article before. Anyways, before this article gets reviewed, the references should all be placed after any punctuation marks per WP:FN. Gary King (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Victor12 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why this referencing method is used? Also, I recommend adding references to paragraphs without one, just to show that all of the information is indeed referenced. Gary King (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added references to each paragraph. Also, Gary King, I use the Harvard Citation Style. I use it because is the citation method I normally use when writing papers. I like it because it allows you to see the name of the author in the main text. So after reading it, and before going into the references you already have a sense of who is the main author referenced in the text and/or who says what. But, again this citation method is just another option to choose from those allowed by Wikipedia.--anunezsanchez (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Scartol

Let me start by apologizing for only now reviewing this article. You've asked me for some time to have a look, and I feel bad that I'm only able to provide these comments while it's listed at GAN. Hopefully I'll be more of a help than a burden. =)

You've got some excellent info here, and it's well organized. You've obviously done a lot of work on this, and you are to be commended for your arduous labor. There are some things that need fixing, but I've no doubt you can remedy them without too many headaches.

• Irrigation in Peru has been – and is expected to remain – a major contributor to increasing the country's food security, agricultural growth, and human development in rural areas. This sentence (the article's first) presents a problem which appears throughout the piece: the appearance of a particular point of view. The use of passive voice is chiefly to blame here: Who expects irrigation to remain a major contributor to improving these elements?

• The second sentence is also problematic: Water resources and irrigation infrastructure are unequally distributed throughout the country, creating very different realities. While this may be a point most (or even all) people agree with, it's still an opinion. The word "unequally" and the phrase "very different realities" are heavy with inference – we should try something more fact-based, like "Water resources and irrigation infrastructure vary throughout the country."

• Speaking of the lead, it should be a summary of the article as a whole; for a page of this length, I recommend 3-4 paragraphs, with short descriptions of each major section featured in the article body itself. If you haven't already, please read WP:LEAD. I usually write the lead at the end of the process, so I can more easily summarize its contents.

• The article could stand some reorganization. I recommend moving "History of the irrigation sector" to the top of the article's body, since the page is meant to provide an overall view of the entire topic of irrigation in Peru. (Chronology is not the only way to approach such a thing, obviously, but in this case – and in most such articles, I've found – it's the best way.)

• Other suggestions about the article's structure:

• Let's rename "Government strategy on the irrigation sector" into "National Irrigation Strategy", and make it a sub-section of "Irrigation development".
• How about combining "Environmental impacts of irrigation" and "Possible climate change impacts on irrigated agriculture" into subheads of a section titled something like "Environmental impacts and effects"?
• I recommend making "Water tariff and cost recovery", "Investment and financing", and "External cooperation" into subheads of a section titled something like "Economics".
• "Annex 1: Lessons learned from the Peruvian model" seems opinionated. I recommend incorporating the information here into the rest of the article. (For example, the paragraph which begins: "Part of the success comes from the Government and WUBs sharing investment responsibilities..." could go in the "Economics" section.) You'll also want to revise wording like "delivering positive results", which is vague and POV. Instead, focus only on facts: in this case, you can just jump to the bit about "combining financial support and capacity building with regularization of water rights".

If you agree with these structural changes, go ahead and make them (or let's discuss them), and then I'll be happy to have a closer look at the individual sections. Kudos again on all of your hard work here. – Scartol • Tok 15:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Irrigation in Peru/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm going to ask for a second opinion on this. I've worked on some MoS stuff, but I want to make sure all of the dash work and the non-breaking spaces are all in order. Also, there are a few things that still need work before it can pass. Below are some recommendations. :) Intothewoods29 (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• The lead should probably be three paragraphs since the article is so long.
• First sentence: expected by whom?
• "creating very different realities" (from Lead). Is there another word that could be used instead of realities? picky picky ;)
• In relevance, you say "Agriculture employs 30% of Peru's population..." Agriculture is a concept; it cannot pay people. Maybe consider changing your choice of words. again, picky picky... :)
• Also in relevance, you write "High-value crops and irrigation technology have had a major impact on the Costa's rural development". Is that supposed to be Coast's? If it is, it shouldn't be capitalized.
• The picture in Irrigation Infrastructure needs author information.
• in Institutional Development you say "From 1945 to 1948, the Government approved a National Plan for Improving Irrigation". I the National Plan a specific agenda? if it is, then it should be in quotes or italics. if not, it shouldn't be capitalized. check capitalization in the whole article too.
• same thing for "10-year National Irrigation Strategy" in Legal Framework
• In Possible Climate Change, you need a second parenthesis in "The Andean Community (CAN estimates that climate change will cause US$30,000 million in losses or 4,5% of the GDP annually starting in 2025.(La Republica)"
• Why is the last section entitled Annex 1?

Second Opinion Comments

Hello! I've taken a run through the article, and there are several things that I'd like to see changed before this article becomes GA.

• External links are not supposed to be placed in the actual text of the article, as they are in the "Institutional framework" and "Possible climate change impacts on irrigated agriculture" sections. Instead, they should be incorporated into the references, or added to the external links section at the bottom of the article.
• Many of the section and subsection titles are extremely long. Please try to shorten as many of them as you can. For example, "Farmers/organizations and on-farm water management" could probably be shortened to "Water management".
• In the "Institutional framework" section, there should be no bolded words or acronyms.
• Per MOS, images should be staggered left and right to improve article flow.
• There are several areas where references are needed:
  • In "Institutional development", the last sentences of the first, second and fourth paragraphs.
  • In "Relevance of irrigation for agriculture and rural development", the last three sentences of the first paragraph.
  • In "Irrigation infrastructure", the last sentences in the second and fourth paragraphs, and the entire fifth paragraph.
  • In "Institutional framework", the last sentences of all three paragraphs.
  • In "Farmers/organizations and on-farm water management", the last two sentences of the second paragraph.
  • In "National irrigation strategy", the last two sentences of the second paragraph.
  • In "Lessons learned from the Peruvian model", the first paragraph and the last two sentences of the last paragraph.
• Non-breaking spaces (see Wikipedia:MOSNUM#Non-breaking spaces) should be added between numbers and units.
• The lede (see WP:Lede) should be at least three solid paragraphs for an article this size.
• There are many sections/subsections, including (but not limited to) "Agricultural land under irrigation/past and present trends", "Irrigation infrastructure" and "Legal framework", where there are many extremely short paragraphs. These little bits can be combined into larger paragraphs for easier reading and article flow.

Due to the number of things I have listed above, I have not done a complete review of the prose. Once the issues above are resolved, I will go back through the article and mention any qualms I have about grammar, sentence structure and the like. If you have questions, I can be contacted here on the review page (I have it watchlisted) or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewers

Dear Reviewers, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this article. I have incorporated most of your comments and will continue to do so in the next few days. I will give you the heads up when it is ready for a second round. Thank you very much --anunezsanchez (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Shortening Titles

I took some time to read the article and the reviews, and here are some recommendations for the shortening of the titles. The symbol " -> " shows the recommended change and the words included in the parenthesis "()" give a reason to some of them:

Contents 1 History of the irrigation sector -> History (We know the article's history deals with the irrigation sector) 1.1 Agricultural land under irrigation/past and present trends -> Past and present irrigation trends 1.2 Institutional development 2 Relevance of irrigation for agriculture and rural development -> Relevance in development (We know it's irrigation and that it has to do with agriculture) 3 Irrigation development 3.1 Irrigation infrastructure 3.2 Linkages with water resources 3.3 Environmental impacts of irrigation 4 Legal and institutional framework 4.1 Legal framework 4.2 Institutional framework 4.3 Farmers/organizations and on-farm water management -> Organizations and water management 5 National irrigation strategy 6 Economics 6.1 Water tariff and cost recovery 6.2 Investment and financing 6.3 External cooperation 7 Possible climate change impacts on irrigated agriculture -> Possible climate change impacts 8 Lessons learned from the Peruvian model 9 See also 10 Cited References 11 External links 12 WikiProject Irrigation by Country

-MarshalN20 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Fail

Sigh... I hate to do this, but since there has been no work on the article by the nominator since the 11th, I'm going to fail this (on the humble advice of Dana Boomer) and remove it from WP:GAN. Sorry. Feel free to renominate this when you're ready. <:) Intothewoods29 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)