User talk:Joaquinjiron/sandbox

Kristi's Edit Suggestions
Overall, I think that you give a lot of good information. The tone is not 100% neutral because the way you write the information portrays China as a negative. However, the information is not bias. In the sentence, "Studies have shown that husbands still have greater martial power..." I would remove the 'studies have shown' part because you cite the sentence and I don't think that there is much need for it. Also, in the sentence, "The dynamic of relationships (amount of "power" held by each parent), and the amount of resources each parent has contributes to the struggle for dominance[5]" it doesn't really seem to be explained. I am not 100% sure on what you want the reader to take away from this sentence. Overall, I think that it is well written and very concise, which is what wikipedia wants.

Joaquin's Response to Kristi Suggestions
Thank you for your suggestion. I have reworded the "studies have shown" sentence per your suggestion. However, each article I read did have a negative tone, as the two child policy has a slew of negative implications for china and their born residents. I will re read and rework my paragraph accordingly to help minimize the negative tone. I am basically just wanting the reader to have a clear understanding of the implications the Two Child policy is having, after being in affect for two years. I also explained what resources are and further clarified what "struggle for resources" means. Thank you! Joaquinjiron (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that you did a really good job with implementing my feedback. The portion that you wrote has a better tone. Also, I did not take into consideration that the two child policy is overall a negative subject. Anyways I think that your contribution to the article will make it better and you did a very good job with the overall assignment. Kuehnemankr (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Kristi Kuehneman

Santosde Ed-review
In the article "China is in muddle over population policy", I was not sure iF that article was a peer review article or if was just an article from the Economist. Other than that I was unaware of this new policy in China and I think that you did a great job describing the differences between the new policy and the old policy, and I felt the criteria for the new policy was very clear and easy to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santosde (talk • contribs) 03:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Joaquin's Response to Santosade Ed-Review Thank you. I am also having a little trouble with a citation. Will look for further clarification of the Economist article. Joaquinjiron (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer review by yvettetiff
You have some really great info on the after effects of the policy in China. I think your analysis of gender equality issues was a good addition to the article. It may be beneficial to add in some facts on why the roles are so much more enforced with two children as opposed to one. In addition to your section in "China" I think the section in the article on the United Kingdom is a tad lengthy in comparison to the rest of the article. I would recommend cleaning some of that portion up in order to make the article flow a little better. I like your contribution thus far and think it has improved the overall article. Yvettetiff (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Joaquin's response to yvettetiff: Thank you! Will re read and structure accoringly to help improve flow. Joaquinjiron (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)