User talk:Cmazar17/sandbox

Hi! To start off, this seems to be an incredibly strong foundation for your article. I am really impressed by your integration of direct quotes and how effectively they are tied into the opening section. I read your comments on the bottom, and I agree that it does have a slight argumentative tone (which is really hard to work around!). With regards to eliminating bias and working towards neutrality, I would aim to restructure the final sentences of both paragraphs. Is there a way that you can further elaborate that the idea raised is directly relative to the term or an author? Pulling in direct citations has been the most effective way for me personally to aim for neutrality. Additionally, you have done a really strong job of integrating and linking other Wikipedia articles into your work, which adds legitimacy and accessibility for the reader. If you can cite the idea of thematic unification of Jim Crow for African American women rather than making it seem like your own claim, this will again strengthen your ideas. Finally, I would recommend adding subsections about certain works that address or include the term to allow readers further exploration outside of the article. I think you have done really solid work and it is evident you know your stuff, so once you organize and add supplemental subsections this will be in great shape. Sharris19 (talk)

I agree with the above comment about breaking up the paragraphs and the themes into smaller, more focused sections. I also would also recommend adding significantly more citations. There are some random, uncited factual sentences in there. The vibe I'm getting from Wiki is that it's better to overcite than undercite so definitely add to that. MadelineMMay (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)