Fort Towson

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 4 May 2016 by reviewer LaMona (talk · contribs).

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Plans to edit article

Hi! I am a student editor and I am considering editing and expanding this article for my project this semester. I see a lot of potential to add more information about the types of prevention, including risk factors, past instances of prevention (success and failure), and some of the psychological basis of genocide. Please see my user page for more information! Nicolekoonce (talk) 01:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have chosen this page to be my topic for this semester. The sections I plan on adding will be: the psychological basis of genocide, risk factors, early warning signs, and the role of the United Nations. I will also expand and reorganize some of the existing sections. Please see my user page for more information! Nicolekoonce (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Hi Nicole,

Great job with your initial contribution. I found it a very good, informative read— and your edits I felt greatly added to the scope and a broader understanding of the topic. I thought the use of varied references in the work was definitely the most impressive thing about the writing— your inclusion of many perspectives will definitely contribute to a greater understanding of the topic, very consistent with interdisciplinary understanding, for readers. Furthermore, I think that the integration of these sources into the work was very well done— and serves not only a clarificatory but an emphatic role here.

There are some changes I think could be made to the article, the most salient of this being a revision of the language used in the writing. At times, it reads somewhat like a research article, which is not completely suitable for the general style and tone of Wikipedia articles. At present, this tone does detract a bit from the contribution and information presented— and so reviewing and changing in response may be able to reduce this. Additionally, the integration of images and media could also greatly add to the information provided in the article, and enhance the readability of this. One final place where I think change is also warranted is in the lead paragraph. After reading the rest of the article— I felt the ability of this section to accurately reflect the entire article may have been a little limited. As readers may not always read the entirety of the article— an effective summation of all the article’s information is important, and so the expansion of this to include not only recent changes but also other missed focus points is called for.

Overall, great work! Your edits have greatly added greatly to your article, and there are only a few places where improvement is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epant25 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide prevention → Prevention of genocide – WP:COMMONNAME, there are more than twice as many Google hits for "prevention of genocide" (383,000) then "genocide prevention" (136,000). I also think that the proposed name is more elegant and clear in what it refers to. b uidhe 00:18, 16 May 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. Jerm (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per WP:COMMONNAME. ~Amkgp ✉ 03:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:CONCISE. Google hits are notoriously inaccurate. If you go down to the last page, you can see that there are 117 hits for "prevention of genocide" and 140 hits for "genocide prevention". The purpose of these statistics is not to show that "genocide prevention" is more common, but to establish that Google is inconclusive so we should look to qualitative arguments to decide the case. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NGRAMS shows a clear common name: [1] b uidhe 09:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for same reasons as Influenza prevention. Interstellarity (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per concise Red Slash 17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose concise. An emperor /// Ave 18:58, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.