User talk:Jaymes1234/sandbox

Comments
Jaymes1234, this is a good start. I'm surprised not to see more included on the longer history of infant mortality rates in Canada. When were they high? Why did they decrease? I recommend that you try to add a section on Infant Mortality in the 19th century, and then one on Reducing Infant Mortality. Neil Sutherland's book, Children in English-Canadian Society: Framing the Twentieth Century Consensus can help you with this history - he has a chapter on infant mortality and reformers efforts to reduce death rates. Otherwise your article isn't sufficiently historical. Then you could retitle the section Infant Mortality in Canada to Contemporary rates of Infant Mortality (in this section, I recommend explaining whose system of "grading" this is -- is it StatsCan?)

There are also many missing references. You make several statements that aren't referenced directly, and need to be. Also, if you are going to mention how Canada's rate is higher than other countries, you need to say which countries and what their rates are. Cliomania (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Jaymes1234, overall I think you have some really good information but Cliomania is right, there are a lot of fact that are not cited. Moreover, your section on infant mortality in Canada seems a little disorganized. Perhaps you would benefit from discussing the province's grades in its entirety before mentioning other countries. I only say this because you jump from provinces to countries and then back to provinces. Also, the grading scale you use in that paragraph may be unfamiliar to those reading about infant mortality for the first time. Perhaps you might want to briefly explain the system of grading used in Canada? Another thing that confused me was in your first section you mentioned that education plays a role in infant mortality, but whose education and more importantly what type? Education as in academic education, prenatal education, general child-rearing knowledge? The sentences “The discrepancy is well known, though little has been done about it. These studies do not distinguish First Nations who live on on reserves.” is a little questionable. The first sentence may be controversial for Wikipedia and the second sentence does not specify which studies. The sentence “Studies done by Health Canada have shown that infant mortality rates were 1.47 to 1.80 times higher in First Nations communities 10.1 and 7.3 per 1000.” does not make total sense. I restructured it to say: “ Studies done by Health Canada have shown that infant mortality rates were 1.47 to 1.80 times higher in First Nations communities, resulting in 10.1 and 7.3 infant deaths per 1000 live births.” from what I assumed you were trying to say, if that is incorrect please feel free to undo that. If it is, you will need to restructure the sentences that follow as well. Lastly, I went over a lot of your grammar and sentence structure but I did not fix it all due to the fact that you may be re-arranging the second section. Once again, overall really interesting article. I think separating First Nation infant mortality from the rest was a good idea. It allows people to focus on it and emphasizes that there is a huge difference. Aplin33 (talk) 06:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)Aplin33