Talk:Circular migration/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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)