User talk:Haleykolus/sandbox

Hi Haley, Nice work on your evaluation. With regard to tone, I recommend reading deeply into the connotations of words used and paying particular attention to the adjectives used. If an article sounds fairly dry and academic, then yes, tone is very hard to pick up. If you know enough already about a topic, sometimes you can see how an article is biased due to what is on it, or what is missing. Keep up the good work, -Momo Sumomox4nouchi (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)sumomox4nouchi

Alexander's Peer Review
When viewing your area drafting section, many of your sentences can be better written. For example, your first sentences can be written as "Since rural areas are considered part of the private sphere, women are responsible for domestic duties as well as farm labor. This includes weeding and harvesting crops, taking care of livestock, cooking, and weaving baskets while the men plow, sow, and irrigate the land". Despite this, the information is presented in a good order along with neutral content presenting no biases. When dealing with sources, the link is not present in your bibliography for Hein de Haas & Aleida van Rooij (2010) Migration as Emancipation? The Impact of Internal and International Migration on the Position of Women Left Behind in Rural Morocco. This means you did not cite your source correctly and should be fixed. When dealing with your sector drafts, "many scholars" should be taken out or edited due to not being very encyclopedic. In addition to this, there is no source cited which should definitely be present. In both area and sector drafts, it would be helpful to include contents of the Wikipedia article before and after so how you transition into this information is able to be seen. Other then that, great job! Your PE seems very interesting!

Alex3877 (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Alex

Response
Thanks for your feedback! I feel like I have a lot of information to convey and it's daunting to try and consolidate it all, so I will definitely revisit my sentences and try to phrase them better to combine sources/ideas. I noticed while drafting that my one bibliography doesn't work, so I'll look into why that is and try to fix it. As I research more, hopefully these issues will resolve themselves as I find more sources with overlapping content to help rephrase my sentences. Also, at least for my Area article, because I'm starting my own section, there is no "before and after" to put in my drafting. Haleykolus (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Tatum's Peer Review
Hi Haley! I really enjoyed reviewing the work you have done so far in your sandbox and learning more about your practice experience organization and what you will be doing this summer. You seem to be off to a good start and I am excited to see what is to come!

After reading over your Summarizing and Synthesizing sections of your sandbox, it appears that for your area article, Women in Morocco, you plan on adding information about how the experience of rural woman in Morocco differs from that of Urban women. That seems like a wonderful addition to the existing wikipedia article because it seems like much of the existing article focuses on women in urban areas.

Moving further into the drafting section of your sandbox, it seems like the first section, Notes, is examples you have found from your scholarly articles that you are interested in adding to your final addition. There are some typos in this section and a lot of different ideas going on; however, I decided to focus on the later part of your drafting section because that seems to be your more solidified ideas. I am curious where you plan to include your section titled "Rural Women" in the existing article? Would it follow the Independence section? The current article seems to focus on the history of Amazigh women in Morocco so I am curious if you could add a section called Amazing Women in Rural Morocco with sub-headings of various topics you have researched (domestic duties, religion, politics, education, etc.) and potentially some history to connect with the information already existing in the article? That seems like a lot to add, but just a thought on how to make it flow.

For the first two sentences, a potential edit could be: "In rural areas of Morocco, women are considered to be a part of the private sphere, therefore, responsible for farm labor in addition to traditional domestic duties, including weeding and harvesting crops, caring for livestock, cooking, and weaving baskets. Men are responsible for plowing, sowing, irrigating the land, and often conduct property and business, even though households are typically female-headed." This statement is then followed by information about lack of access to "power-related spaces," religious affiliations, and politics. I am curious how you could make the flow of this first paragraph better by potentially creating more sub-headings and adding additional information for each section, which I imagine you plan on doing! The section paragraph of the area section if very focused on education so maybe putting a sub-heading of Education would be beneficial. I think this paragraph is off to a wonderful start and you seem to have good references to continue adding to how the education of women in rural Morocco differs from that of women in urban areas.

Moving on to the sector portion of your Summarizing and Synthesizing portion of your sandbox, it appears that you will be adding a section called Obstacles and Shortcomings where you will discuss the relationship between secular feminism and Islamic feminism. I think this is a really interesting component to add to your existing wikipedia page and I am excited to see the final addition. It seems like you are off to a good start and just need to do a little more research to solidify what you want to add. My only suggestion for what you have so far is avoiding the use of the phrase "Many scholars."

Overall, it seems like you are off to a wonderful start! I am excited for you to solidify the structure and flow of your additions to the existing wikipedia articles. The majority of your work seems to be neutral except for the phrase "Many scholars." Using this phrase kind of makes claims on behalf of scholars, which I think you can avoid super easily. I love how much thought you have put into what you want to add! I think the most important thing you can improve upon is working on where you can add your research into the existing articles!

These are just thoughts and suggestions–by all means you do not have to listen to them, but let me know if you have any questions! You are doing wonderfully!!! Best of luck! T.sandzimier (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Response
To respond to your comment about rural Amazigh women, there isn't much academia on this demographic, most sources generalize rural women (mostly to be Arab), and don't make the distinction in their research as to what is applicable to Arab women and Amazigh. (To be clear, Amazigh is the indigenous population, and they live by slightly different cultural values and traditions, so I don't want to make any specific notes/comments on their experiences in case it infringes on their reality and way of life).

For your other comments on structuring, I agree about subheadings and reevaluating sentence and paragraph structure, and I think all those things will fix themselves as I get more information and more sources. Thanks for your feedback! Haleykolus (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)