User talk:Aarwatson/sandbox

Peer Review
Review of article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aarwatson/sandbox

Lead: Generally good, though it could be a little more concise. Lead sentence is good. Remember to edit this section to reflect the sections you plan on adding to better summarize the article.

Content: Content is relevant and recent. The content you're planning on adding seems appropriate too.

Tone and Balance: Good academic tone and information. There's a couple places where the article discusses whether or not she was radical which should maybe be addressed through context more than statements like cite contemporary criticisms of her (instead of saying she was conservative, cite Leopold Senghor or someone saying she was) and cite specific works of hers where certain opinions pop up but this isn't a huge issue. In particular, maybe address the line saying her politics were "conservative right center" unless she actually identified in those terms (in which case, cite and say that.) Try to fix the parts that label her as not radical or not militant with content that proves those things.

Sources and References: There's no citations in the lead section, maybe add some. Other than that, sources seem relevant, trustworthy and recent. Good secondary sources.

Organization: Your plan for re-organizing the article is very good, putting all that under bio and then expanding is definitely the right direction. Good job!

Images: N/A

Overall: Your organization plan and the content you plan to put in is probably your strongest addition to the article. You're on the right track, you've just got to fill out those sections! Hadford (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review by Ashlyn Osborne
Lead: Good lead! Some of the introduction seems a bit repetitive of information that could be mentioned below in other more specific sections. Maybe try to make the introduction more concise and move some of those details to more specific sections. Content: What you have seems good. And the planned sections also seem relevant. Tone and Balance: Good neutral tone for the most part. Sources and Reference: Maybe add some outside sources (outside of Wikipedia) within the article as well in order to help broaden the range of sources and references. Organization: Good organization! The planned sections also seem to have a good flow. Images and Media: Maybe add some pictures, but not necessary. Overall: Good beginning to this article! Once you have filled out the different sections and added some more sources and references, I think it will be great! Miss.Ashlyn (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer review
Lead evaluation: Your lead clearly states the gist of the entirety of the article giving a good snapshot of the article overall. It could be considered over detailed in including so much information. You could look at making it more concise as you continue to edit and add information.

Content evaluation: Great overall content. It might be interesting to add some of the contributions she made while serving with the UN. Was she integral to anything important as a result or why did she serve as an area specialist? There is a lack of defined the work in understanding issues of the population of the Caribbean mentioned in the later article that is stated in the lead. Also, we discussed in class some her religious ideology playing a vital role in her ideas of women being involved in society, however, there is nothing mentioned about her religious inclinations in this article. Other avenues to include would maybe be global feminism and creating links of her to that or into your article. Other links to consider are: T. Denean Sharpley-Whiting, social consciousness, Union féminine civique et sociale and Légitime Défense. There could be more use of referential/citation support throughout the article.

Tone and balance evaluation: The tone of the article is very professional and to the point. Great job in being consistent!

Organization evaluation: This article is well written, easy to follow, engaging and informative. I think the flow is very logical.

Overall evaluation: Seems like it is reaching completion. The role that her ideology played in her life seems interwoven into every aspect of her history. The planned expansions seem interesting and would add to the strength of the article. I look forward to reading the rest! Alibarnabenelson (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback. Note: This article has received three peer reviews.
I will be sending a general statement that applies to all or virtually all of the first drafts and peer reviews through email to every member of the class, along with the grades for the peer reviews. On these "talk" pages I will only be posting my own feedback on the first drafts.

I think your plan is good, I don’t see any specific sources or references or citations that you plan to use for any of the developments so I will suggest some things here that seem relevant to what you are already saying you want to do. Boittin, Jennifer Anne. 2005. “In Black and White: Gender, Race Relations, and the Nardal Sisters in Interwar Paris.” French Colonial History 6: 119–36. https://search-ebscohost-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2008399332&site=eds-live&scope=site. Garcia CO. Black Women Writers, Modernism, and Paris. International Journal of Francophone Studies. 2011;14(1-2):27-42. https://search-ebscohost-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2013640572&site=eds-live&scope=site

Egar, Emmanuel E. 2009. “The Crisis of Negritude: A Study of the Black Movement against Intellectual Oppression in the Early 20th Century.” https://search-ebscohost-com.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mzh&AN=2017308559&site=eds-live&scope=site. However, your peer reviewers (especially Barnabé-Nelson) also mention important things that are currently not represented in the Wikipedia article at all. So think about expanding more into new territory rather than only deepening themes already addressed – so eg incorporate something about religion (in her case, Catholicism) and perhaps develop the discussion of her role at the UN and in transnational feminism. A certain amount of information along those lines is just available in the book from which I assigned the readings so the first thing to do might be to read that entire thing carefully. Unfortunately, I have been searching for quite awhile and I cannot easily find any specific works to recommend to you that for certain will deal with Nardal, though many things that treat the general issue of the original establishment of the various UN commissions would presumably mention her. IN terms of her politics and legacay, you might be able to get something out of this: https://www.aaihs.org/the-legacy-of-martinican-women-in-french-politics/ FeliceLifshitz (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)FeliceLifshitz