User talk:Arieleliu/sandbox

Ariele's Peer ReviewThesubtleart (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
What accomplishes well: You did a great job to gather information from women participants and try to represent various perspectives to present a neutral point of view! I'm impressed by their different thinking on this march. The article also has a clear structure and sections are organized well.

What could be improved: I suggest adding a few lead sentences before introducing the controversial issues so that audience could have a good grasp of the overview of the march in 2019 then start learning about different opinions.

Peer review: Charlie Faramarzi
'''<<Nice job! I honestly felt like this was a published article on Wikipedia when I was reading through it. I did, however, notice a couple minor things I described below.'''

According to CBS News[1], controversy over alleged anti-semitism <<The s should be capitalized here and in all other appearances of 'anti-Semitism' in the article had a huge impact on the attendance of the 2019 Women’s March. In November, Teresa Shook, one of the Women’s March founders, accused the four main leaders of the national march organization of anti-semitism. Controversy of anti-semitism has led prominent organizations, such as the Democratic National Committee, and hundreds of other organizations, as well as few politicians, to disaffiliate themselves with the 2019 Women’s March. Several left-wing activist groups that had sponsored the 2017 Women’s March did not appear on the sponsored list for 2019. As stated by the National Review[2], some of those groups included, “the NAACP, Emily’s List, NARAL, the National Abortion Federation, the AFL-CIO, the SEIU and its health-care union 1199SEIU, GLAAD, the Human Rights Campaign, Center for American Progress, and National Resources Defense Council”. Additionally, New Wave Feminists, a group against abortion, joined in this year’s march, despite being removed as a partner before the 2017 march. Vox[3] goes into further depth of the controversy, stating how Tamika Mallory, co-chair of the Women’s March, attended the Nation of Islam’s Saviours Day Event, where Leader Louis Farrakhan, seemed to be making anti-semitism comments. Mallory continued to further support Farrakhan, creating controversy within the Women’s March community. As noted by The Guardian[4], only tens of thousands of participants showed up in 2019, which is significantly less than the initial march with millions of participants nationally. As stated by The New York Times[5], individuals presented their hesitations of whether they wanted to attend the 2019 March or not, given the controversy of the anti-semitism charges. As to why one individual, Donna McDonough, 69-year-old registered nurse, made the decision as to why she was going to attend the 2019 March, she stated, “I think Mallory should unequivocally boycott Farrakhan but no one should boycott this march. She doesn’t represent the entire organization.”

Grammatical Errors:

“While some local groups are boycotting the march, it will be held in Eureka on Saturday, January 19, according to an article in the Times Standard on January 16, 2019.[47]”

While some local groups are boycotting the march, the march was held in Eureka on Saturday, January 19, according to an article in the Times Standard on January 16, 2019.

==section California

The Humboldt County March scheduled to be held in Eureka, California was cancelled due to the organizers' concern that the March would reflect the population of the County by being, "overwhelmingly white," thereby failing to represent "several perspectives in our community.” However, some community members were unhappy with the decision to cancel the march. July 2018 Census Bureau data reflected that Humboldt[6] County is about 74 percent non-Hispanic white; thus, commentators argued over the necessity to cancel a march whose participating audience’s demographic was reflective of the population. The Eureka march was re-scheduled by a different group of organizers including former Eureka city councilwoman Linda Atkins. '''While some local groups are boycotting the march, it will be held in Eureka on Saturday, January 19, according to an article in the Times Standard on January 16, 2019. <>''' In response to the cancellation of the Women’s March in Eureka, the Eureka[7] group said it was considering holding an event in March to celebrate International Women’s Day, which is on March 8.

In[8] Southern California, marches had an aura of celebration to them as participants had claimed recent victories in the 2018 midterm election where Republican strongholds such as Orange County had turned blue and elected more women than ever before to Congress.

==section Celebrities

In[9] the Los Angeles march, celebrities such as actress Anjelica Huston, singer Lance Bass and “Modern Family” star Sarah Hyland were seen participating.

==section Speakers and Participating Officials

Representative Katie Hill also took the stage in the Los Angeles March.

==New section: 2019 Women’s March Agenda (will be added above regional marches)

For the 2019 Women’s March, The Women’s March organization, posted an agenda of the goals this year’s march plans to advocate for a month before the event. The organization named it the Women’s Agenda. This is the first federal policy platform the organization has created. The Women’s Agenda was announced the day of the march was posted on the organization’s website[10]. Website viewers have the ability to digitally endorse the agenda. The organization organized 70 movement leaders to develop this agenda that includes 24 federal policies they believe to essential. These policies “form the foundation of the 2019 Women’s March on Washington and will establish the priorities of the movement over the course of two years.” Some of these policies that are prioritized include: ending violence against women and femmes, ending state violence, immigrant rights, disability rights, racial justice, environmental justice and LGBTQIA’s rights. For more in depth information, the organization has provided a 71 page PDF[11] that deeply examines each of the 24 goals. Each of the goal’s section highlights the theory of change that is planned to be used in order to achieve it. Many of the 24 essential goals have more than one policy goal.

Withdrawal of Support '''<<Depending on how you plan to organize the article, this may be somewhat repetitive with the first section? Perhaps you could merge the 2 and delete any overlap?''' Beginning in 2018, Women’s March began to receive criticisms by different individuals and organizations because of the speculation that some of the leading members of the group were associated with antisemitism[12]. Recently, The Democratic National Committee as well as the Southern Poverty Law Center have joined forces to withdraw[13] their support from Women’s March, which was another blow to the turnout rate of the 2019 marches. Many of the potential participants withdrew from the organization and refused to participate further because of the accusations. Even the original founder of Women’s March, Teresa Shook, agreed with the critics and decided to ask the co-chairs of the group to step down because of their anti semitic beliefs. The fragmentation within the organization as well as critical public views led to the decline in support of the movement especially during the recent marches of 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfaramarzi (talk • contribs) 05:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
I thought your draft was very well written and could not find very many flaws. Under the Attendance section (which I assume will be a new section?), you've included a recap of attendees and how they affiliate with the march. It might be helpful to possibly create two paragraphs, with one focusing on anti-Semitism and the other on all the other attendees. It seemed like you briefly covered anti-Semitism then jumped to other attendees, then back to it.

For your last sentence in the California section, would you be including more information in particular about more women being elected to Congress and how that influences the march?

Other than this, you did a great job in writing the draft. Cxndyoh (talk) 07:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review: Mark Palmer
Great article additions!! Here are some edits I just want to run past you. For example, I don't believe its a great idea to start a section with "According to CBS news", as it doesn't give the reader any context into why you are citing the article itself until later in the section. Adding an intro statement or reorganizing the section to introduce the controversy surrounding the movement would create a more fluid reading experience. Secondly, I don't believe wikipedia is the place for the opinion/quote of Donna McDonough, as her opinion could be very biased. Your group has a lot of great sources, and intersperse the sources well within your article. To shorten the article, maybe leave the references as just the footnotes, instead of explaining where it came from, like "according to an article in the Times Standard on January 16, 2019.". I would suggest footnoting the link and deleting the statement previously quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpalm123 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)