User talk:CarinaFlaherty/sandbox

Dear Lola, Maeve and Josh, Hello! My Wikipedia article was on abortion in Guatemala. My article has 5 sections: History and General Context, Current Legal Status and Punishment, Effects of Illegalization where I look at Induced Abortions and National Abortion Rates, Controversy, and Guatemalan Law in an International and Regional Context. I would love feedback on these three areas of my paper: 1) Do you get the sense that there is any bias in my article? I know it is a loaded topic but I am trying to be as neutral as possible. 2) Would my history and general context section be more effective if it were split up into smaller sections? 3) In my Current Legal Status and Punishment section, is listing just listing the articles and what they say effective in conveying information or is it a bit too dense? Any way I could make it more effective? Thanks for the help! -Carina

My Dearest Carina,

I very much enjoyed reading your article because you are very passionate about women's rights (women's right to privacy) and you have a strong background regarding the topic.

I thought the historical context was very thorough and informative however I would break it apart. For example, you mentioned how the Catholic Church has greatly impacted the attitudes towards abortion. The Church should have a separate section because it is unequivocal how the traditional and conservative views/beliefs of the Church makes abortion a huge controversy in Guatemala.

Furthermore, one thing I noticed was the size of each section. Wikipedia emphasizes a balance of information in each section. For example, you mentioned how countries such as Cuba have liberal laws/views. Elaborate why that is the case. Geographical reasons, religion, etc.

Another thing that could be added to your article is, what distinguishes Guatemala from other pro-life countries? Are there more extreme laws regarding abortion? Is the public more outspoken in Guatemala about abortion compared to other pro-life countries? (Just a thought, you of course do not need to mention this if you feel it digresses from your article).

Overall great job. You really supported your argument with a plethora of statistics and your wording was genius. Did not seem too biased in my opinion, however it is mainly because I agree with most of the information that was presented in your article.

See you in the morning Meehae. xoxo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janislaw20 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carina!

I really enjoyed your article. I thought you did a great job finding information.

As for your questions, abortion is definitely a subject that is hard to be neutral with but I thought you did a really good job. My only suggestions was that I found a few sentences I thought could be presented in a more neutral way. At the end of the first section I think you could make the last sentence more neutral. Instead of making the claim “it is clear why a predominantly Catholic country like Guatemala would have strict abortion laws” I think it would be more neutral if you got rid of “it is clear why” and just said “Since the stance of the Catholic Church on abortion is conservative, Guatemala has strict abortion laws.” I also think the first sentence in the section about Effects of Illegalization could be phrased a little differently to make it less political. Maybe say “Even if abortion is illegal, women still get abortions.” I thought you did a good job presenting the section on Controversy. My only suggestion would be your sentence “The refusal of the Guatemalan government to allow the Women on Waves vessel to stop in Guatemala exemplifies the lack of options for women in Guatemala who experience an unintended pregnancy and want an abortion but cannot legally access one because their lives are not at risk.” Maybe instead of lack of options say limited options. I think it makes it a little less political.

I thought your history and general context had really good information. I agree with Josh it would be more effective to break it up into paragraphs. Personally i thought it seemed natural to break it up at the sentence that begins with "Since 1973" and then again start a new paragraph when you start talking about the Catholic Church.

In the Current Legal Status and Punishment section to make it easier to read I would suggest separating the information into small pragraphs about each article. Even though they wouldn’t be very long and somewhat of a list, I think separating the information could make it easier to read.

Overall I was really impressed with your article and enjoyed learning about this topic!

Mrvitale (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)Maeve