User talk:Breannapalmer

.

Welcome!
Hello, Breannapalmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Test of feedback options.
I am exploring the different options available for providing instructor feedback and peer reviews for the first drafts of the Wikipedia contributions.FeliceLifshitz (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)FeliceLifshitz

testing in talk space Breannapalmer (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)BreannaPalmer test Breannapalmer (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi! If you're having issues with the general edits, these videos could be helpful when it comes to the training modules. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New Section Test: Talk
I am preparing my article for peer review feedback. I also am searching for more information but also looking to work with some of what I already have posted there. Breannapalmer (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Response
Hi! I saw that you'd posted a response to my page a while back - did you still need help with anything? Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Breanna! You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into your first draft! So far, I think the breadth of your research is outstanding, especially regarding her social reform and legacy. I appreciate that you’re probably planning on adding a lot of information including and outside of what I’m about to suggest, but I have some comments on the organization, content, and references in your draft.

The structure of the original article is organized into four major sections (Early life, Career, Family, and Legacy). I think these sections are too broad to encompass every aspect of McClung’s life. For example, it groups all of McClung’s lifetime achievements into one relatively small section titled “Career”, which is partly organized chronologically and partly organized according to McClung’s participation in different organizations or advocacy for different causes. In your draft, you reorganize the structure of the article by adding “Activism/Feminism” and “Religion” sections, and adding “Education” and “Family Members” as subsections under the “Early Life” section. These ideas are excellent, and I would even go beyond them.

To better organize your draft, you might divide the “Career” section according to each of McClung’s endeavours, like “Political Participation” (involvement in the Liberal Party), “Political Activism” (Women’s Political Equality Group, mock Women’s Parliament), and maybe a “Legal Activism” section where you discuss the effects of her political involvement (like women’s enfranchisement in Manitoba, the Person’s Case, etc). Alternatively, you could organize the career section according to the province in which McClung lived. After discussing her work in Manitoba, you could talk separately about McClung’s work as an author and public speaker as she lived in Edmonton. Next, you could either add your new “Activism” section or “Religion” section.

If you settle on “Religion” next, this is where you might talk about social gospel methodism, her view of women (maybe contrast it to Simone de Beauvoir’s view of women as parasites who deserve to have less social power and Paulette Nardal’s opposite view?). This section could also include McClung’s fight for women’s ordination into the Methodist church. If instead you choose “Activism” to go next, you could divide the section into three subsections: Political activism (political party involvement, push for women’s voting rights, anti-war activism) ; social activism (Eugenics, Temperance movement, maternal feminism); and maybe legal activism (women’s enfranchisement in Manitoba, Labour Movement involvement, push for anti-prostitution legislation, sterilization legislation, etc). In contradiction to her belief in eugenics, McClung was heavily invested in human rights (what a total paradox, right?), so maybe adding a section on her human rights advocacy would balance out the section on eugenics and keep the article neutral in tone. I think your connection to social issues like domestic abuse (and its connection to the Temperance Movement) and issues affecting immigrants and the vulnerable sector is really well-done. You could add this to a section on social reform, or even include it in the “Legacy” section. In my research, I discovered some extra things you might include or expand on. McClung was heavily invested in human rights as well as women’s rights. In her novels (specifically Painted Fires) she talks about recognizably feminist issues, like systematic biases about immigrant women, as well as domestic abuse, slut-shaming, and prostitution. You might research the content of her novels and its significance. Additionally, she advocated for enfranchisement of Japanese people in Canada (a particularly controversial act considering the political climate of the time) and opening Canadian borders to Jewish refugees. You could also link to World War II and the Japanese Internment in Canada (the bombing of Pearl Harbour) to provide some context for her anti-war activism. She also pushed for Dower’s Rights (which still exist in Canada today!), factory safety legislation, and equal pay, and was involved in the Labour Movement.

I also appreciate your proposal to include a “Feminisms” section and include other famous Canadian women. I applaud your link to other Canadian women, like Emily Carr and Lucy maud Montgomery, and expansion on the members of the Famous Five. In addition to Maternal Feminism (and possibly critics who disagree with the idea of McClung as a maternal feminist) you could talk about McClung as a part of the New Woman movement, especially in reference to her public speaking. You might also connect McClung to other individuals or groups in the New Woman Movement, like Seito, E. Pauline Johnson, and Rokheya Shekhawat Hossain. Original research is not allowed, but I personally think McClung practiced intersectional feminism through her advocacy for immigrant women. Although the term “intersectional” didn’t exist during McClung’s time, you might find a published source that connects McClung to intersectionality. As a result, you will have a significant connection between McClung and the larger history of feminism.

Lastly, the references of the original article could be improved, since only five of the nineteen references are journal articles. An easy way to make the article more credible is to use peer-reviewed, published articles, and it is awesome that you include some of these in your draft. I also applaud your use of creative commons to search for images! I am going to follow your lead and apply that to my article as well.

Overall, your first draft seems very well thought out. Everything you’ve included seems relevant and on-topic. My only constructive criticism is that you seem to emphasize her positive endeavours, like advocacy for vulnerable groups and women’s rights. If you focus equally on McClung’s positive endeavours and negative endeavours (like eugenics) and present a variety of viewpoints on each of the mentioned topics, you will preserve the neutrality of your article. I think the most important changes you could make to the original article (some of which you’ve already done) are structure and organization to make the timeline of McClung’s life clearer. Finally, there are some important influences in her life, like the political climate (World War II, Japanese internment, etc) and religious climate, that provide historical context for her work. Additionally, discussing other feminist movements, like Maternal Feminism and the New Woman Movement, would also help situate McClung within the broader narrative of the history of feminist advocacy.

Here are some works I used for this peer review that might help you out: Warne, R. R. 2006. Literature as pulpit: the Christian social activism of Nellie L. McClung. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1433259.

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/bound-not-gagged/2016/01/seven-important-parts-nellie-mcclungs-dynamic-and-complicate

https://www.ournellie.com/learn/about-nellie/

Hroitberg (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Helen

Thank you for the Peer Review
Thank you for the Peer Review, I have added your suggestions into my sandbox! Breannapalmer (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit-A-Thon invitation
Hi there! As a U of A student who has worked with Wikipedia in class, you may be interested in this event coming up at MacEwen on March 5:

You may have heard that Wikipedia has a serious gender problem: the majority of editors on the site are men (mostly white men) and there are significantly fewer articles about women and nonbinary folks on the site than men. As you can imagine, this means that the world reflected through Wikipedia, the world's most visited reference site, is biased and inaccurate. The good news is: you can help fix this, and it's easy!

On March 5 from 2 to 8 p.m., the University of Alberta Library and MacEwan University are partnering to run an Art + Feminism Wikipedia edit-a-thon at MacEwan's new Allard Hall. Come for 10 minutes or a few hours -- it's quick to learn and you can make an impact with just one little edit!

There will be friendly people, yummy food, a tour of the Mitchell Art Gallery, and a panel to end the day. RSVP and share on Facebook. Feel free to get in touch with me if you need more information!

Erin O'Neil Wikipedian in Residence, Digital Scholarship Centre University of Alberta amiskwaciwâskahikan / Treaty 6 she / her

Ham1ltoner1n (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)