User talk:Hannahdobrott/sandbox

Lulu's Peer Review
First off I would like to say this is a really good start and you guys added quite a few interesting topics to the article. Some feedback and suggestions I have are:

Attendance
 * I like that you guys go into a lot more detail about why the attendance was lower than the previous years. Maybe also expand into the other topics that were brought up in the beginning the the article which said 'News reports from across North America noted that turnout for the 2019 Women's March was lower compared to previous years, with potential reasons being poor weather, a decline in interest and controversy over protest organization in the United States, and the controversies involving the March's leadership'

California
 * The Humboldt County March section is a little bit confusing and hard to follow. There are a lot of facts and things that are happening so make sure to include clear transitions between the different events.

Speakers and Participating Officials
 * The line 'Representative Katie Hill also took the stage in the Los Angeles March.' is missing a citation.

Withdrawal of Support
 * The whole anti-semantic part seems to be a little bit too repetitive with the attendance section. So you guys might want to just include it one of those sections'
 * maybe instead of having this section you can change it to a section on critiques against women's march section that talks about movements or people who are against the march. That way you are not limited to people who withdrew support but maybe were just against it in the first place.

Also another cool thing too add to the article could be a section on how social media was used arrange and organize the movements! Good job so far though!

Lulutao (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Emily's Peer Review
This is a really strong draft and I think it will make a great edition to the page.

Well done. The only suggestion I have is reading aloud to ensure clarity and flow of your draft. Emilygess (talk) 04:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)EmilyGess

Tory's Peer Review
My main notes on this article is consolidation. I noticed a couple of times that the writing became very wordy. For example: "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," the phrase "as to why" is used too much.

Also, well done on citing reputable sources. In the actual draft though, I suggest straying away from saying "According to Vox" or something like that. The only reason it stood out to me because I don't remember reading that before in a wikipedia article unless it is phrased with big relevance like "Fox News does xyz while other news stations do xyz" something like that. Adding your citation footnotes sort of makes it so that you don't have to put who reported what in your actual article. This will also help it feel less cluttered.

Anti-semitic is used a lot in this article draft. Would it be worth it to create a section dedicated to anti-semitism?

Overall wonderful job. I think this is a really strong first draft and you guys are definitely making great edits and additions to the original article.

Torybigelow (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Torybigelow

Response to peer reviews
Hi Lulu, Tory and Emily,

Thank you all for your feedback. You all brought up really helpful points.

First I'd like to address the points Lulu has suggested.

'''Lulu Feedback: '''I appreciate how you broke your feedback up into sections relevant to the article. For the attendance, I will talk to the group about incorporating more details from earlier in the article to this section. As you suggested, it will help contextualize it more.

California: I will read through this section and make sure to simplify it by creating better transitions without removing too much of the important information.

Speakers and Participating officials: I will talk to my group about where this citation is- thank you for pointing this out!  Withdrawal of support: I like your idea about incorporating the anti-semitic part in another section like the attendance section. I agree it could help with making the article less repetitive.

Thanks again for your feedback! I will talk to my group about adding the social media section as well.

Tory's Feedback:

Thanks for your notes Tory! I will talk to my group about making the article less wordy and more straight to the point. I think incorporating your feedback by taking out "According to xyz..." will allow it to be more direct and flow better.

In regard to the anti-semitic section, my group and I will have to further to discuss how to include this. Lulu suggested incorporating it into the attendance section while it could be more beneficial like you said to have it in its own section. This is something we will need to further discuss as a group because I see either option as being a great one!

Thanks again for your feedback.

Emily's Feedback:

Hi Emily! Thanks for your feedback about flow. I agree it could be shortened a bit. After we implement the edits others have suggested, we will make sure that to read aloud and make sure it nicely flows. Thanks for your feedback.

Hannah March 17, 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannahdobrott (talk • contribs) 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)