Talk:How to Suppress Women's Writing

Editing
I agree with Julian. Very well done! I imagine that this page was nonexistent before your additions so kudos. Here are the edits that I noticed:

-Did a minor edit by adding "and" haha

-You mention "it explains how women and minorities are prevented from producing written works," however, you never mention minorities anywhere else throughout the wiki page. It is unclear whether you are referring to women as minorities (which is true) or how I think most people will read it as racial minorities. In which case you don't talk anything about minorities. I recommend you either delete that or you relate the "methods" (at least some of them) to minorities.

-The background section should be moved before the methods section. Seems to read more chronologically/logically for readers.

-Your first paragraph has a lot of great information yet no support or citations. I see one after the first sentence. Can you find citations for the information on paintings, authors, or style? I think it would bolster your argument.

-Also I would encourage you to add to the reception section. It seems very brief, granted, I know it is difficult to find more information but that is an area to think of improving.

Also, love the photo. Hope this helps! Great work Austin and Kim!!!

CPBoyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Copyediting? I guess. I don't know
Great job! Keep it on fighting the good fight.

A couple of notes:

"Although primarily focusing on texts written in English, the author also includes examples from non-English works as well as paintings" feels a little awkward. Paintings feels like it was tacked on at the end.

"Russ aims to describe the systematic social forces that fight female authors" It seems like the female authors should fight the systematic social forces not the other way around. "Oppress" maybe?

The title "Methods" is a little confusing, however I'm not sure how to fix. "Methods" might suggest the various writing methods that Russ employed to write the book, although if you read the section, it is quite clear what Methods mean in this context. I'm not sure how to change it or if you even need to.

I don't think you need a "Background" section. I think you could probably put that information in the header.

Great job with the grammar and such. Although I am terrible at punctuation and spelling, it seems that you didn't make any mistakes. Take that with a grain of salt, though. Jmwisebird (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)