User talk:CrescentEvi
| This user is a student editor in Emily_Carr_University_of_Art_and_Design/AHIS_320_Intro_to_Gender,_Feminist,_and_Cultural_Theory_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
Hello, CrescentEvi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Notes
Hi! Here are my notes:
- Tone
The tone needs work, as it comes across as a promotional piece advocating for the organization. I think that part of this can be resolved by summarizing more of the material. For example, the second paragraph in the lead could be condensed - there's not a huge need for a lot of explanation about the human rights movement, as the article should be about the organization. Removing this and tweaking the material will result in this:
- This organization grew out of the idea that women's rights are human rights, which WiLDAF states is a more assertive claim to rights for women than the previous rhetoric of "needs". WiLDAF functions as a multi-regional/transnational organization, as well as paying close attention to the economical, social and historical differences between states and countries.
This helps resolve the above issue while still getting the basic point across that the organization focuses on women's human rights, their reason for it, as well as showing how they function. Be careful of words like "even though" as these come across like you're arguing a point in a persuasive essay.
Something else to take into consideration is that the lead is supposed to be a fairly basic summary, so anything beyond the most basic and general synopsis of the organization should be in other sections. Leads should really only be very long when the article as a whole is extremely lengthy, like with the article on Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Star Trek. (Using two of my favorite topics as an example.)
- Sourcing
This could use more sourcing - what you have here is good, but some sections are unsourced or undersourced so it could use more. Aside from verifying claims, this is also needed to establish notability for the organization itself - however only independent, reliable sources can show notability. If a source was written by WiLDAF or someone or an organization affiliated with or working for them, it will be a primary source at best. Database listings are seen as routine, so those can't show notability either. There are a lot of primary sources in the article and I'm not sure if the others were written by people affiliated with WiLDAF (or the papers were sponsored by them), so I wanted to warn you about this. I'm not terribly worried about the organization being notable, but it's always better to have more non-primary sourcing than primary.
Overall this looks pretty good - other than finding more sourcing and doing some editing for tone, this is going well. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for Sixties Scoop feedback
It was so helpful to get your comments. I am a journalist by training and used to quoting people in the articles I write. It was a very valid point that these quotes should be cut/very limited in Wikipedia. I made that comment too in one of the articles I reviewed but had failed to apply the same standard to myself when writing. Also, I had not yet explored the linking function and that too was a great suggestion -- the article is now linked throughout to related Wikipedia pages. Lastly, the content, I had thought I might be short but not that short of the class requirement. Based on your interest in the AIM program, I considerably expanded this section as well as a few other areas and have surpassed the minimum work count. Thanks again! Davidajeanne (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Notes on "Women in Law & Development in Africa"
The article in it's first draft is already on a high level: The first paragraph summarizes WiLDAF and gives first insight in the goals and reasoning behind the organization. The article is well structured for the most part, even though "History", "Structure", "Aims and goals" and "Projects and efforts" should remain the main points, while the segment on Ghana could be incorporated into "Projects and efforts", especially regarding the collaboration with Crossroads International and thus offering the "Access to Justice Program". It would have improved the article to engage in how the media campaigns actually resulted in specific numbers in regards to violence against women. The point "structure" could have used additional information about how the organization functions in different countries with different needs, regulations and statistics. Over all a very successful first draft that could be improved more with specific numbers attached to facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximilian Brey (talk • contribs) 04:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)