User talk:Jordanhawkins/sandbox

Peer Review: By Sam Bloomfield

Suggestions for Wikipedia article as-is: After reading the Wikipedia article for “Intersectionality,” I have noticed many errors and flaws. The article seems very disjointed, as though the editors simply added to it without checking to read the whole article to see what information was already there. Two or three times, the article credits Kimberlé Crenshaw for creating the term “intersectionality” in 1989. While this is an important fact, I do not feel that the article benefitted from it being mentioned multiple times. Also, multiple paragraphs of the “Feminist thought” section made claims about Crenshaw’s and Patricia Hill Collins’ work without citing the papers it draws from at the end of each sentence. These claims should probably be fact-checked and should definitely be cited. The article also occasionally mentions feminist thinkers and scholars without providing any background for these people’s credentials or histories. Cheryl Townsend Gilkes is mentioned exactly once with zero context, and no sources in the works cited points to any of her writings or credentials. Something similar happens with Marie-Claire Belleau. She is mentioned without an introduction, and the first mention of her name links to a nonexistent Wikipedia page. While this is not as awful as the Cheryl Townsend Gilkes situation, as the works cited includes a citation for one of Belleau’s writings, I still think the article could benefit from more context. I also took issue with the huge Patricia Hill Collins quote at the beginning of “Marxist feminist critical theory.” This quote could probably be paraphrased or rewritten in a more accessible way that does not require directly quoting copywritten intellectual property. Also, to nitpick, I noticed that the first paragraph of the section “In practice” uses the phrase “For example,” twice within three sentences. I think this could be worded less repetitively. And finally, I found absolutely no value in the “Intersectionality as a ‘religion’” segment of the article. It seemed to just combine three hyperbolic quotes where people coincidentally used the same simile to make no point whatsoever. It distracted from the focus of the article and is a misleading section title, as there are no people that pay legitimate religious homage to intersectionality (as far as I am aware). I think the article as a whole would benefit from the removal of this section.

Suggestions for content in your sandbox: After looking at your sandbox, I imagine that the content it contains is entirely originally written and will be placed somewhere into the Wikipedia article. I would be interested to know what section it would be placed under, and if that section is something that your group will create or if it is preexisting. Of the preexisting sections, I think this blurb could easily fit into either “Historical background,” “Feminist thought,” or “Key concepts.” You might even benefit from dividing up each paragraph and putting each one in a different section, depending on where each one best fit. I thought your addition to the article was, for the most part, well written, well researched, and well cited, however, I feel that there is some room for improvement. When referencing “south” as a location and not a direction, it should be capitalized (i.e. “travel east and then south” v.s. “I’m from the South”). Also, I found the phrase “Double Jeopardy is a term coined based on the oppressions that come at the intersection of being black and a woman” to be somewhat clunky and hard to follow. I might suggest replacing it with “Double Jeopardy is a term that references the intersecting oppressions that comes from being both black and a woman.” Also, I found your final paragraph about the Combahee River Collective to be very valuable and relevant to your article, although it lacked citations entirely. I hope that you will provide a source for this information.