Talk:Circular migration

Intention to edit article

The current Circular Migration article is in need of improvement in several areas. Although it exists, it is referenced poorly, lacks details and links to other pages, has some citation errors, and omits crucial aspects of the issues. Upon first glance, the most striking thing is the pure lack of substantive and relevant information. The page has no table of contents and has only two sparse sections.The first sentence of the article lists many issues related to the topic of circular migration, but does not go into detail about any of them. Of the material that is present, most of it focuses solely on the United States. While circular migration involving the United States as a destination country is important, there are many other crucial areas of the issue that should be explored. The given example of Puerto Rico is interesting, but I believe that the example of Israel should be omitted. Many international examples provide a greater context and more in-depth understanding of the topic, including circular migration both between countries and within a country between urban and rural areas. Furthermore, the current article presents little information on other facets of circular migration, such as healthcare, women, global policy, and international development. I would like to provide an overview of the issue and its statistics, do an in-depth analysis of both the costs and benefits of circular migration, and include information on the aforementioned facets of the topic. I intend to edit this article, using sources from the International Labor Review, International Migration, scholars such as Connelly, Gidwani, Newland, and reports by the International Organization for Migration. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions that you all may have, in terms of content, organization, or additional sources! I hope to make this article as strong as possible. Twoods158 (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

I'll leave some notes here as I read through the article.

• I unlinked development in the lead; I think that's too general a term for a link, and it leads to a disambiguation page in any case. Is there a more specific term that we could link to? Reading further, I see a few more links to common terms like education and poverty; I'm removing some of them. Links are useful where you suspect a reader is going to need to look something up to get a better understanding -- we don't need to link every possible article, and in particular common terms and concepts are rarely linked.
• I removed the "See also" section too -- there was nothing wrong with it per se, but everything in the list is already linked in the article. "See also" is really for links to articles that are highly relevant but which don't show up in the article as a link.
• There are a handful of places where there's no citation to support the text -- would it be possible to add a citation to cover those sentences?
• Footnote 14 appears to cite two different papers. It would be better to split them up -- I can do this if you're not sure how.
• Twoods158 asked me for specific feedback on the costs and benefits sections, and the section structure overall. I think it's fine the way it is; the sequences flow well. I wouldn't change anything.
• Future ideas for the article: how about a table of statistics, if a reliable source can be found? E.g. showing the main flows of circular migration with the source and target countries and estimates of the numbers? It would also be good to add an image or two -- take a look at this category on Commons, for example.

Overall, this is excellent work. I've upgraded the article to B status. It would take a bit more work to get to Good Article status, but it's not all that far away. Congratulations! -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your help, feedback, and suggestions! I've cleaned up Footnote 14 and added a couple of images from the Commons. I tried to find specific statistics, but it was not very easy. The closest I got was an article called "Circular Migration: A Triple Win or a Dead End" (http://www.gurn.info/en/discussion-papers/no15-mar11-circular-migration-a-triple-win-or-a-dead-end) on page 19. I'll continue to look for data! Do you think it would be appropriate to nominate for Good Article status in the near future? What specifically do you think I need to do first? Twoods158 (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right -- that data isn't very amenable to putting in a simple table. For GA, the first thing I would suggest is checking with Diana on what else is needed for the article to be comprehensive. You can see the good article criteria here; they specifically don't require comprehensiveness, but I think it would be good to know what would be required for that so you can decide if there's anything else you want to include. You might also want to take a look at the good article nomination page; you'd probably be nominating in the "Economics and business" section, which is here, and you can see that one article has been waiting three months for a review, while another got reviewed after only six days. If you do decide to nominate, and it doesn't get reviewed by the end of the semester, it would be best if you removed the nomination unless you're willing to keep an eye on the page and respond to a review even after the end of the semester.

The main thing needed for GA, once you've decided whether to include any more material after Diana's had a look at it, is probably a copyedit, which I should be able to do. I would also check that everything is cited -- technically you don't need to cite absolutely everything, but in practice I find it's worth doing because otherwise you have to go hunting for a citation if someone challenges a statement. Also, are you confident that when you use a source you've rephrased the information in your own words? We're not supposed to use sentences from sources with just minor changes -- it should be your restatement of the information. I mention this just because I don't have access to your sources but it's something that reviewer who does have access is likely to check.

Let me know when you hear from Diana, and I'll take another look. I may be a bit busy this week but should have at least some time most evenings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

More comments!

First of all, the comprehensiveness of this article is pretty impressive, especially considering it was originally a stub! I have a few suggestions you could consider with minor organization and breaking up the blocks of texts, like you said.

I think it could be helpful to have bullet points for some of your lists, just for visual purposes. The two examples I can think of are the six criteria for circular migration, as well as the four factors that are important for its impact. Putting them in a bulleted list might make them easier to find for a rushed reader!

As far as splitting up the text, it might be helpful to split up the Benefits into three subsections of each "triple-win" and possibly the Costs section into brain drain and freedom. I was thinking it could be appropriate to move the Health issues section into the Costs section as well.

I think all the case studies you included were a really nice addition, and helped put the subject into a global context. The section on policy suggestions is good in that regard too, in that it shows some of the current issues facing the subject of circular migration.

As you were discussing above, it would be nice to have some statistics on circular migration in countries, and the world map you have is one really good way to do that visually. Possibly more pictures too? I know that that can be complicated.

By and large, this article is really well written and covers a great amount of issues surrounding the subject. Congrats on B status!

Lggernon (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Lggernon! I like the list idea. I'll try that out! I also really like the splitting up of Costs and Benefits! I've been trying to figure out how to label them, but I like your suggestions. I'll also continue to look for statistics. Again, I appreciate the feedback! Twoods158 (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

I really enjoyed reading this article and I think that it is really comprehensive. You've done a lot of good work especially considering that it started off as a stub! First of all, I think some parts are still a little text heavy and can be split up into more subsections to make it easier on the eyes. The "Case Studies" section is very readable so if you can make the rest more readable like that it would be better.

Also, I think that for the most part the article is neutral but under the gender section I think you can frame the sentence "Policy and intervention programs should...." differently because this is an encyclopedia and that sentence doesn't have the right tone for an encyclopedia article.

Finally, do you know if there are some countries that actually have circular migration policies in place with each other. I think that may be something interesting to add if there is information available. Anyways, you picked an interesting topic and wrote a really good article. Lgriffin92 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, Lgriffin92! I agree that some of the sections need to be split up. I'm working on that now! I'll definitely take a look at that section for neutrality. I'm not sure about specific countries, but I'll do some research on it! Again, thank you for your help! Twoods158 (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DASonnenfeld (talk · contribs) 13:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is a thoughtful, interesting article. To me, the appropriate class continues to be "B". While well on the way to Good Article, the article does not yet have a broad world-wide perspective. One example from the references is that Europe and the Mediterranean are not presently included in the case studies in the article. One other thing that I think could be improved is documentation of sources of the figures and images used in the article. I gather that the lead image is based on data from the 2008 CIA World Factbook, for example. One of the first things that caught my eye is that there are no 'See also' or 'External links' sections to the article. Are there any related articles in Wikipedia that are not already linked within the article that might be added to the former? Any key external sources not already included in the footnotes?

Comments by Buttonwillowite (talk)

Hello Twoods158! Due to meat-space demands I won't be able to be a proper reviewer, but I strongly agree that this is an interesting and thoughtful article. The reason I'm adding my comments is that this is an issue I happen to be very interested in, although unfortunately my knowledge is limited to the experiences of latin american farm workers immigrating to and from the United States.

It seems to me that you do a good job of covering many of the downsides of circular migration, but the issue of wage suppression of the 'native' workerforce is not addressed. For example, during the years of the Bracero program, circular migrant workers were paid substantially less than both native and "settled" immigrant workers, who were forced to lower their wages in order to compete with the Braceros. In a situation like this, calling circular migration a triple-win makes sense from the position of the capitalist class, but substantially less so for the working class.

Another example of a disadvantage of circular migration from the perspective of labor is when considering unionization and worker organization. Again, because I am most familiar with migrant farm workers in the US, I would point to the struggles of the United Farm Workers union, led by Cesar Chavez. Many people don't realize that Cesar Chavez actually was strongly opposed to circular migration, and even tacitly approved a so-called "wet line" on the border between the US and Mexico (in some ways, shockingly similar to the more recent Minuteman Project) in an ineffectual attempt to discourage people from crossing the border into the United States. The reason for his extreme view was that circular immigrants would frequently scab for farmers in the fields where the UFW was conducting strikes, making negotiations for higher wages and better working conditions difficult-to-impossible.

Please feel free to ignore my comments, and I hope that DASonnenfeld doesn't mind my intrusion.. I will try to come back and check on both the article and the review as they both progress! Best of luck, Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to revise what I said earlier; Cesar Chavez wasn't opposed to circular migration per se. He was opposed to illegal immigration, which would include but not be limited to circular migration, for the reasons I described. However, I believe my point (that circular migration affects unionization) still deserves consideration. Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review list

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

The article has ben substantly improved, but it still needs some work to meet with good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   I agree with DASonnenfeld about additional sections to be added. Further, the current sections on Gender and Health issues should be subsections of the "Costs" section.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   I agree with Buttonwillowite that some additional "Costs" perspective is needed on workforce issues in respect to effects on local workers, with Unionized workers as a special example.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Thank you for improving and nominating the article fo GA. The noted issues should be addressed before it is nominated again. Meclee (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Response to GA Review

Hello all,

Thanks so much for all the feedback, DASonnenfeld and Buttonwillowite! I appreciate you taking the time to review the article and giving me thoughtful responses. Over the next few weeks, I plan on expanding the article to contain a broader, world-wide perspective as many mentioned. Hopefully, with some edits and additional information, the article will eventually reach Good Article status. I look forward to more feedback in the future! Twoods158 (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I just want to thank you for your hard work on this article. Please leave a note in my talk page if you bring it back for another GA nomination! Buttonwillowite (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Work has been busier than I expected the past few months, but I've been accumulating sources and plan on adding more material over the Christmas holidays and bringing it back for another nomination. I'll be sure to post on your talk page! Twoods158 (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)