User talk:Justineishere/sandbox

Peer Review of Ball Culture
Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? The edit feels pretty well balanced with the rest of the article. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? This section is well organized in a sensible order. The section’s length is equal to the importance of the article’s subject. Everything in the edit is on topic with the subject of the article. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? The article tells information about vogueing in ballroom culture. The article is not bias, but informs. Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? They are from reliable sources. First, what does the article do well? The article introduces a dance movement that was popular in the 70 and 80s ballroom culture. The section does well to inform. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I can only see one source listed, unless I just don’t see the others. I would like to see more sources added in the edit.

Over all, I think this was a good edit. It explains what vogueing is and where it comes from. I think that more sourced could be added, unless I just couldn’t see them on wiki.

Justine's response to Maud's peer review
Thank you for reviewing our wiki edit about Consciousness Raising! You left some really good ideas and I am glad that you saw our content and citations as important and well-written. The poetry heading was automatically set up in all caps and I was able to go in and change that so thank you for pointing that out. I appreciate your input and we will look into the other suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justineishere (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Justine's evaluation of group wiki page
Group Members: Bri Wylie, Justine Heredia, Leslie Toledo

Wiki page: Consciousness Raising

Evaluation:

Do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic?

The article does some to give information about what this topic is, but it does lack in many areas. Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? It reflects some information, but there could be a lot more added in the etymology and what consciousness raising looks like within a group of activists.

Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? The article gives way more information in the Feminism section than LGBT rights and does not even have a poetry section, which as we know is widely used.

The edit feels pretty well balanced with the rest of the article. Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? It is not well balanced, while there is a larger Feminism section it has no poetry section and severely lacking in etymology. They are somewhat well organized, just lacking.

Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)?Is each section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

Each section is not in equal length, and a big part that consciousness raising is used in is poetry. The etymology section does not give much insight at the origin of these words and practice. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view?

No

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y."

No

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..."

No

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? They are from reliable sources. First, what does the article do well?

The articles are from reliable sources and give good quotes.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

There is no poetry section in this wiki and that is what our group will be focusing on to add it because it is an important movement in consciousness raising.

Over all this article is lacking a lot, more than our group can add in this semester, so we are focusing on the main glaring problem. That there is no mention of poetry. Consciousness Raising and poetry are very much connected, as we have read and learned in out WGS courses over the years. Hopefully by us adding this in, it will give more credit to this movement and to the authors who contributed to this, like Audre Lorde, because they deserve to be recognized for their liberatory and revolutionary work. And I hope that our contribution is kept on wiki and added onto by other interested people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justineishere (talk • contribs) 18:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)