User talk:JOrtz/sandbox

I have planned on adding a few sections to the Women migrant workers from developing countries article. The first one that should be added is a background to give general knowledge on what will be discussed throughout. With this, I feel like there should also be a terminology page that should be incoporated. This is crucial because there could be some words that are used throughout that one may not be too familiar with. Aside from sections, I also think there should be more countries added to the manufacturing workers section. I believe that adding more countries will help enrich the article. The same would go for the immigration/emigration of other countries. Furthermore, I believe there should also be a section on contributions that were made throughout. I believe this is something that is important to add because it shows a different side of the women migrant workers.

Sources: Gender and Migration: Why are Women more Vulnerable? http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/sites/iheid/files/sites/genre/shared/Genre_docs/2865_Actes2004/10-m.kawar.pdf

Women migrant workers’ contributions to development http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2017/7/women-migrant-workers-contributions-to-development

At what cost? Women migrant workers, remittances and development http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2017/2/women-migrant-workers-remittances-and-development

“Contributions of women migrant workers to development: going beyond remittances” https://gfmd.org/files/documents/gfmd_turkey2014-2015_tm3_background_note.pdf

Women Migrant Workers' Contributions to Development http://www.refworld.org/pdfid/5a1bfcce4.pdf

Women migrant workers: seizing opportunities, upholding rights http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/features/WCMS_098491/lang--en/index.htm

Migrant Women, Women Migrant Workers http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CMW/SideEvent2016/PatrickTaran.pdf

The Female Face of Migration http://www.caritas.org/includes/pdf/backgroundmigration.pdf

JOrtz (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)JOrtz

 These all seem like good sources and a thoughtful direction for this article - Prof H

Article Evaluation 3/12
Notes -Must have a clear structure that is easy to understand -Looking at ratings should be something that should be considered in order to know if a Wikipedia article has a good rating. This can be found on the talk page. -A form of plagiarism still includes copying words, structure, or phrases from original source. -When looking back at your article one can view the changes/edits another person has made. It puts them right next to each other so one can notice the change easily.

The US Census Bureau Everything in the article was relevant to the article topic. I thought that all the information was put in an a well-organized way. I thought the introduction was very clear and direct about what was going to be discussed throughout the rest of the article. It helped tie me in to the information I was about to dive into. There wasn't anything that was out of place or distracted me. Also, there weren't any direct opinions or claims that were intertwined within the article. All the details and information were well constructed and had no biases, from what I could see. There was no direct claim or frame that appeared heavily biased toward any particular position. I reread this article a couple times to not only better comprehend what I was exactly reading, but as well as to make sure I wasn't possibly overlooking any biases or claims. This article listed sources that seemed independent and credible. There were some references from the US Census Bureau as well, but as mentioned there were other sources that were used within too. As far as the citations go, the few I did click on seemed to all work rather smoothly. Although I did not click on all of the links I was surprised that the ones I did click on worked. For the most part I always tend to deal with citations that don't cooperate or work well. After clicking they took me exactly to where I was expecting to go to. One of the sources I did click on did support the claims in the article. It almost tied in pretty well actually. As I began reading the 'Talk' section of this article, I was able to see everything that isn't seen right away as you open the article. There was way more information that was provided in this section that wasn't in the main article. There was some information that I read that I thought would've enhanced the main article and shouldn't have been left out and only put in the 'Talk' section. Also, as I was looking through this section I was able to notice that there were many changes and corrections made throughout. After looking at everything this article and the 'Talk' entail, I could see this article being a source that is a good example of reliability.

JOrtz (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)JOrtz

JOrtz's peer review
The article has a lot information and way too long that it distracts the reader and makes it harder for the reader to find what they’re looking for. Gender-specific division of labor content, especially Analyses of migrant nannies section is too long and has many unnecessary information. What you are planning to add is great, and all the information is going to make the article stronger. Also, your sources are relevant to the article title and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HaneenAlkinani (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Responding to Peer Review
Migration within Africa There has been an increase of female migration within Africa. Due to a all the harsh conditions Africa withstands such as starvation, poverty, and disease, these have been some of the reasons to increase the need for work. In Africa there has also been in increase in high male unemployment, which has been a factor in the increase of women working more. [28] Since women are working more and being the main providers for their families, they go wherever there is work. They don't always go out of the country for work, they tend to migrate within their country. The work that constantly has them moving from region to region is the agriculture and mineral deposits. [29] Although there is work within their own country they don't always remain in the close regions. There are some that migrate outside their country. Some places they migrate to are, but not limited to, areas in North America or even Europe. [28] There are many jobs that they are willing to travel to. A reason that has attracted African migrant workers to places outside their country is the demand for domestic work. [28]

1st) Peer review: The article has a lot information and way too long that it distracts the reader and makes it harder for the reader to find what they’re looking for. Gender-specific division of labor content, especially Analyses of migrant nannies section is too long and has many unnecessary information. What you are planning to add is great, and all the information is going to make the article stronger. Also, your sources are relevant to the article title and useful.

Responding to this peer review.

I couldn't find my article within my sandbox anymore, so I copied just the paragraph I wrote onto here. When I was first writing my paragraph, I copied and pasted the other paragraphs that were already in the section I wanted to add to. I did that so it was easy for others to see what I was going to contribute to. So, I believe that this person thought I wrote all three of the paragraphs, when I had only wrote one. I did specify right after the title of my paragraph that, that was my own contribution and work. They must have over read it and didn't notice, and that's why I believe they are saying that there is long unnecessary information in there. That wasn't what I had incorporated at all, but when I do add my paragraph into the real article I could go back and edit that paragraph they are talking about. So with that being said, beyond that I couldn't really make edits and incorporate more into my own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOrtz (talk • contribs) 22:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer review
I meant that the information in the original article had many information. But I understand that it wasn’t you who added them. However, the contributions you made to the article are very helpful and very clear. I think you did a great job editing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.35.92 (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)