User talk:AnonBos22/sandbox

The title of the article is Justice for Janitors, but then, later on in the article, the movement is referred to as Janitors for Justice. Consider adding a list of references at the end of the article, and also links to the reference list (the super-scripted numbers) throughout the article. Remove the edit source parts from the headings. I like the campaign section where the different city movements are described; if possible, expand on those sections and possibly add citations. Some of the links to other articles seem kind of misplaced, but I'm not 100% sure. For example, the "janitors marched" link goes to an article about a news videographer which I didn't understand but I didn't read the article word for word. - Arlen Agiliga

Neutrality The article itself kind of leans more on Justice for Janitors being a victim to an invisible oppression. Perhaps, expand to the reasons of WHO exactly is oppressing janitors and WHY they are oppressing them. You can place this information in the background, perhaps. Having a criticism section does make the article more neutral, but should expand more by giving us more information of what groups are criticizing them. Also, instead of Accomplishments, perhaps say "Consequences" because you later say how "janitors continue to be poorly paid and to work without benefits." You just need more information on the reasons of oppression, who/what groups oppressed them, expand on criticisms and "impacts of this organization" for this article to be more neutral. In addition, having citations will be a help to improve neutrality - Martha Gamy

Paloma Socorro:

My response to/advice for: - Lead Section and Summary - Clear and concise lead section - Well done with first introducing sentence - Background - [Suggestion] Add comma after "bottom-up model" - [Suggestion] "visibility of workers" is a bit unclear, in regards to meaning — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonymousPerson9 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

We believe that this article is informative overall, but missing some details and info. - MG, AA, PS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcasterellus (talk • contribs) 17:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Feedback
The best way to handle bias in a Wikipedia article is to add sources that reflect other perspectives, and to ensure that the sources are presented in a way that reflects their real-world importance (don't overrepresent any one point of view). Unsourced information can be tagged with citation needed, dubious, or removed (preferably after you've made an effort to track down sources and couldn't find any).

If the problem is more one of tone than content, consider replacing problematic terminology with more neutral equivalents. Have a look at Manual of Style/Words to watch - there's a wealth of good suggestions there.

As an aside - it looks like you copied the page into your sandbox without first clicking "edit" on the page you copied. As a result, your section header titles are a little messed up, and your citations may break if you copy from this page, back into the main article. You may want to copy citations from the existing article into your sandbox again. And always remember to click edit before you copy anything in Wikipedia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)