User talk:71.227.243.196/sandbox

Jasmine's Peer Review
1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? The article did go good job of expanding the early text in types of abuses and then adding an example in detail. The work of expanding the text in information in the example, while also in-depth created a good balance with the original start to the article and furthered the content. Specific the information on the types of abuses was well developed into the earlier third paragraph and helped develop content to the context previously supplied. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Overall, the most important thing that could be done to improve the article is organizing the content added into more sections in order to better describe the situations occurring in both the specific actions of violence against women as well as the awareness of a problem within Tanzania of abuse on women during childbirth. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Something that I noticed in the article that I noticed would be applicable to my own article is the referencing of specific time periods when information was collected. This was something I had not completely considered and had look towards the major differences of major countries and not the time they were implicated. This would significantly increase the relevance in time to my goal of updating and adding information into my own Wikipedia article. Elliott, Elizabeth (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Elliott, Elizabeth
 * The fourth paragraph seems to repeat the third paragraph but in more specific depth. I see the information as important, but the information becomes redundant to a certain capacity by specifically naming the issues the World Health Organization has found. To separate your new material and better informing a reader about the specific types of abuses I see the potential for a new section and deconstructing the third paragraph within your own new material. A new section to encompass the information of specific abuses would allow for more structured article format that separates the structure of abuse towards women during child birth (facilities, procedures, professionals) away from the actions taken by these structures (forced sterilizations, restrains, physical abuse, etc.)
 * The small fifth paragraph might be something to expand as you discuss in your case study material of discrimination by identity within different structures. This may be from the original piece, but I see that it could be expanded within the examples given. In the given examples expanding the specific intersectional identities of women can help better elaborate on the violence to the group of women, as well as the sub-identities held by women. However, information on specific identity types is very specific and potentially undeveloped in literature, which could limit the expansion, but it would benefit in connecting the subculture of violence against women.
 * In the example expansion of Tanzania, I see a potential problem in the structure. The movement between the three studies could be separated into two different paragraphs and better convey the different research conducted and learned. I'm also not sure about the usage of the name and et al. (E.g. McMahon et al.) I would suggest using a title such and research such as "Dr. McMahon conducted a research project that ..." to better explain the topic to people who do not know what "et al." refers to as well as a single name to indicate a last name. The structure of the example can become better informative and impactful with more separation of learned concerns as well as the different interventions occurring.