User talk:Hannahjameson/sandbox

Mechanics

 * Switch to wiki style citations. Add them by clicking the cite button and entering in the source info at the and of each sentence with a citation.


 * I think "there are also several other religions" is a little vague and awkward. Maybe write "many Indians follow other religions" instead.


 * "The government in India, however, can be against other religions, for example, ..." is a comma splice. Change the comma after "religions" to a period or semicolon.


 * "Exemplifying the difference between individuals who follow different religions." is not a complete sentence. You could revise to "this exemplifies the difference between individuals who follow different religions", but I think it would be okay to omit that sentence. It's pretty clear what your example shows.


 * "The rise of this party in India will restrict a lot of people from following their religion freely" is a little wordy. "The rise of this party will restrict religious freedom in India." reads easier in my opinion.


 * "The rise of this party in India will restrict a lot of people from following their religion freely, especially since they want to promote an only Hindu nation." is a comma splice. Replace the comma after "freely" with a period or semicolon.


 * "China is very similar to India in that, their government has large control over what its citizens are doing." is a run-on sentence. I find this one a bit tricky to revise. "Much like the Indian Government, the Chinese government exerts control over it's citizens' lives." might work, but it's certainly not perfect.


 * "Rights such as not allowing people to have access to religious leaders, imprisoning people for following different religions, and not allowing citizens to worship freely. According to an article about religious persecution in China, it states, "The U.S. State Department and human rights groups have documented instances of torture, wrongful imprisonment, and other inhumane treatment of minorities" (Union for Reform Judaism)." These sentences need work. The first sentence is not complete. You could fix this by adding China as the subject of the sentence; "China violates human right by restricting access to religious leaders, imprisoning religious minorities, and forbidding freedom of worship (citation of source where you got this information)". Restricting access to religious leaders, imprisoning religious minorities, and not allowing worship are each examples of violations of rights, not rights. It's important to state who or what guarantees the rights you mention. For example, if I was forced to house US soldiers in my apartment during peacetime, that would be a violation of my 3rd amendment rights. In this example, the 3rd amendment guarantees freedom from quartering soldiers during peacetime. I don't know if there is any guarantee of freedom of religion in China. If there is, cite it. If not, just state what the Chinese government does, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. Maybe like this, "China restricts access to religious leaders, imprisons religious minorities, and forbids freedom of worship (citation of source where you got this information)." The quote in the second sentence is too long, summarize. Instead of writing "According to an article about religious persecution in China", I would state where the article is from: "According to the Union for Reform Judaism...". The use of "it states" is problematic. I would revise in one of two ways: "According to the Union for Reform Judaism ..." or "An article by The Union for reform Judaism states...". You might lend greater credence to the source like this, "The US State Department and others have documented instances of [the violations you described] (citation for the Union for Reform Judaism).


 * "Pakistan is a country where the government has a lot of power over its people." This sentence uses the passive voice, and it's rather wordy. I would revise to something like this "The Pakistani government exercises extensive power over its citizens".


 * "According to an article about religious discrimination in Pakistan, there was this girl named Maira, and she got kidnapped at 19 years old, luckily she was found and a court case was held." is a run-on sentence. This should be at least 3 sentences. I wouldn't bother separately stating Maira's existence. The fact of her kidnapping implies her existence. However, establishing Maira's identity as a Christian would make the goal of this sentence more clear. Even that only makes sense if you establish the fact that Pakistan is a Muslim nation before bringing up an example of ill-treatment of non-Muslims. We both know that Pakistan is a Muslim nation, but not everyone does. With all that in mind, I would revise to the following. "The pro-Muslim Pakistani government discriminates against the nation's Christian minority. In one case, a Muslim man kidnapped a 19-year-old Christian woman named Maira (citation). Authorities caught the kidnapper. However, in the proceeding trial, the judge ruled that Maira should stay with her kidnapper because he had converted her from Christianity to Islam (citation)."

Content

 * In the second sentence of the paragraph about India, the use of the word "church" is somewhat vague. Specify which church they were a part of for greater clarity.


 * The quote following "According to 21WilberForce" is very long. I would consider summarizing with a citation rather than quoting directly.


 * The last few sentences of the paragraph about India clearly shows your opinions and predictions. I agree with your opinions, but Wikipedia is for well-established information only. Instead of saying, "Spreading fear among society is not a good way to live", provide examples of common occurrences, and let the reader do the rest.


 * The use of the term "breaking down" in the second sentence of the paragraph on China is ambiguous. At first I read that as 'the Chinese government splits [the groups you mentioned] into smaller sub-groups'. I would change to a term that more clearly states what the Chinese government does. Oppresses, persecutes, or discriminates against would all work. Additionally, there's no need for the phrase "is known for" in this sentence. It adds words without adding meaning.


 * "The Chinese legal system doesn't protect the rights of humans, since a lot of their rights have been broken and violated." The use of "their" in this sentence somewhat ambiguous. Are you talking about the religious minorities from the previous sentence?


 * "Rights such as not allowing people to have access to religious leaders, imprisoning people for following different religions, and not allowing citizens to worship freely." When use the word "different" in this sentence, what are you comparing against? Different from what?


 * Again, there's a lot of opinion and prediction in the paragraphs about China and Pakistan. Wikipedia is for information only; let the reader draw conclusions. Instead of saying "


 * "The people in China wrote a long list for them to reform these rules and how to be a better nation." cite this list, or find an article that mentions it.


 * Cite sources in the paragraph about Pakistan


 * This is an encyclopedia article, not a persuasive essay. The goal isn't to make an assertion then back it up with evidence from your sources. We are supposed to present information from a series of credible sources