User talk:Alexa.trujillo/sandbox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

Everything in this article makes sense and directly relates to the title of the article, "Rape Culture." Nothing distracted me per-say, but things did jump out at me and surprise me, like how back when men who were married could never be charged with rape against his wife because she was his "property." Another thing that surprised me was that men were labeled mentally ill if they raped a woman even though many if not all men are capable of this violent act. This article presents both sides, male and female, but focuses much more on the female perspective and how society normalizes rape. This article also does a nice job bringing up other countries and the way in which they view rape as well. I checked two of the links at the bottom and one link worked while the other did not. The article that did work seemed to be reliable because it was written by a person which a Ph.D. This article was bias and had a clear viewpoint in which states that we should resist rape culture. The sources that are used are both un-bias and bias, and articles seemed to be pulled from a couple years ago so this info could be a bit outdated. In the talk feature, it is people talking about how the article is bias and should remain more neutral. The way in which wikipedia presents info different than how we do in class is basically one or two perspectives on the issue with a general bias, while in class we have multiple perspectives and opinions on a specific issue no matter what gender.

I have emailed your peer review because the template does not show up here. -Jordyn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jashleybarber (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Sean McDonough Peer Evaluation: Introductory Sentence: You have a nice intro sentence. Summary: The lead section covers what third world feminism is and how it has been used in a general sense. Context: All significant information is addressed in the summary and the lower two sections split it into two sections to talk more about it.Smcdonough827 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC) Organization Pt. 1: There are headings. There are no sub-headings but is organized well Organization Pt. 2: It is organized logically. Content Pt. 1: Not only were two new sections added but the introductory paragraphs were beefed up to include more information and talk more about the novel introduced in the beginning. Content Pt. 2: Small addition with the information about the book was nice. Content Pt. 3: I think the balance is nice. Content Pt. 4: Your tone is unchanging and good. Content Pt. 5: Nope, you do a good job at staying unbiased. Content Pt. 6: Your tone is good. Citations: I only found one sources that I could open and it looks like the other source cited is the same one put twice. Sources Pt. 1: The source cited is good for the topic but maybe include some more sources not from the publisher. Sources Pt. 2: They are appropriate but again maybe more sources. Sources Pt. 3: There is only one source. Completeness: The citation is filled out appropriately for your source.

Hao Duong Peer Review
-	Lead Sentence: I think you have a great lead sentence for your article! -	Summary: You have summarized the novel and it’s context, you have also included the it’s impact on its audiences -	Context: I think you have done a great job in explaining the term “Third World” and “ Feminism”, which would help the audiences to understand more about the context of the novel. I think if you could include a little bit more the audiences's reaction over the novel or the critics, I think it will be beneficial for your article. -	Organization: The bold header surely have helped me to follow and to understand the article more easily -	Content: Your article surely have a rich content which provide me, as a leader, to understand more about the novel and the context about it. Moreover, I glad that you have chosen the topic of Feminism outside of the US, as a non- American. -	Citations: You have the sources to support your article!-	The sources are well included in the article. -	I think you have done a good job with your article and I can already see that you will have a amazing final articles with just a little bit more works — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.237.14.21 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)