User talk:Annajulia.se/sandbox

Hi there, Lovely work on the article selection and evaluation. I appreciate your addition of extra links to related pages. Keep up the good work! -Momo Sumomox4nouchi (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2019 (UTC)sumomox4nouchi

Peer Review
Looking at the lead of your sandbox, it looks great. You introduce your articles and practice experience really well. Don’t forget to add a “References” section at the end of your article. I see that you have citations already which is great; just add References title above it.

You have way above the minimum 3+3 scholarly sources from a wide range of perspectives so that is great.

The way you are structuring your drafting is a really good idea; describing current wikipedia sentence and then your add on makes it clear what addition you are making. I see that you have one add-on for both area and sector articles. Consider adding more because you have a rich list of scholarly sources. Make sure that every sentence you add is cited.

Above your area article, it says that “this article is written like a personal reflection essay, personal essay, or argumentative essay”. I noticed that the sentence structure sounds like arguments in the introduction of the article. Words like “although” and “while” at the beginning of sentences make them sound like arguments. See if you can use your sources to eliminate that wording and make the article more neutral?

Jasleenkaur118 (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)Jasleen Kaur

Anna B's Peer Review
Hey other Anna!

I see your sandbox is coming along really well! I remember we spoke in class not too long ago about how you were having trouble finding articles focused on Asian and Filipino-American health research and services, I'm really happy to see you found a good minimum of articles so far! Your planned contributions and emphasis on topics seems great, and your area and sector wiki articles appear they would benefit from some more information and organization.

I'm seeing your drafting contributions are only using 3 articles currently (with the minimum being 6 for both area and sector overall), and each of the articles are only referenced once within the drafting. My advice would be to try to use as many of the scholarly articles and add as much information from sources as possible as these are both important topics to add on to, and have wiki articles that are most likely lacking adequate information. Within your area portion of drafting you also mention, "Due to [their] tendency to not seek professional health services, Filipino American tendencies include turning to more indigenous coping strategies, such as religion, spirituality, and family.", this seems to be kind of a conclusion/ potential assumption about the Filipino American community. I would recommend either removing the statement or perhaps rephrasing it into something more neutral like, "Coping strategies such as religion, spirituality and family are often turned to when Filipino-American's are not able to find adequate professional health services that meets their personal and cultural cultural needs", or something along those lines.

Overall I believe your drafting is off to a good start! Be sure to add a reference section and reference the recent articles you've chosen as well, I see that you have 5 other articles that could also be beneficial.

Good luck with further drafting and beyond! :)

Annabutterfield (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to Jasleen's Peer Review
Hi Jasleen, thanks for your responses to my article! Just to recap everything you said, I will be sure to add a "References" section soon - definitely before the final draft. That part slipped my mind, so thank you for the reminder. As for adding more, I will be adding more over the next few weeks, as I continuously do more research and begin to approach the final draft of this article. Like you noticed, I have a lot of sources, so I am going to take some time to sift through them again, before formulating anything further. Lastly, I will look over my language again and make sure that it doesn't sound argumentative. If you're already getting that feeling, then it is warranted that I do so, in order to keep the article as objective as possible. Again, thanks for your response and I will be sure to keep them in mind as I move forward with this project! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annajulia.se (talk • contribs) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to Anna B.'s Peer Review
Hello other Anna!

To be honest, it was a bit of a struggle to find all the articles, but given enough time and effort, I was finally able to gather a good bank of them. I'm pretty happy with what I have, but I am always searching for more. Right now, with the beginning stages of the drafting process, everything is still raw and I am still sifting through a lot of research, so I hope that I will be able to smooth things out very soon! Also, thanks for reminding me about the references section, that completely slipped my mind. I will be adding that in soon and it will be in the final draft.

As for the language needing to be more neutral, I completely agree and it is something that I will be taking into deeper consideration as I start to make edits towards the final draft. To reiterate an earlier point I made, the draft is very raw right now and I think that in a couple weeks, when I begin to make final edits, this will look much better, both in terms of articles used/cited and in using neutral language.

Thanks for your comments and suggestions! Good luck to you with your article, as well!