User talk:KhaliaN/sandbox

Peer Review
Done by Raeganzottl (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)raeganzottl

Here are some ideas that I believe your second draft may want to include.

1. I think you should include a lead section to the page. Right now it only contains one sentence that does not give an accurate depiction of Phyllis Trible. By adding a lead section you can summarize the main important information about Phyllis and allow future readers the ability to access a quick overview of her and her actions.

2. I think it would be beneficial to include a picture of her to the page. (a picture is worth a 1000 words and can provide a lot of quick information)

3. I think you should have a section dedicated to her earlier years, such as her family and where and how she grew up. This kind of information can provide a lot of insight on her as an individual and how she developed her worldviews. I think considering her actions are religiously focused, you should include her religious background or lack of one to help explain why she chose to do what she does.

4. You should also include a section on her more important texts/ works. This can show some examples of her criticism as well as establish how her ideas should be considered feminist. This will also expand on what she did in her career and why she is an important individual in history.

5. Did she have a legacy? Did her work inspire other important individuals, or add to any specific events/movements. This will help to put her work in context and show how she influenced the history of feminism and add her to the broader conversation.

6. Can any of her actions be tied to feminism or is it just her written work that is. (such as are any of her lectures that she teaches considered feminist)

7. I think the creation of the major themes is great. I think you should continue to add to this section to give a clear understanding of what she focused on.

8. The criticisms section is also great! Were there only backlash from specific individuals, or did she also face criticism from any academic institutions? Or was she affected by this criticism in any way?

9. I think it's great that you adding her to the history of the feminism page and have found where she fits in history. Maybe you could even add to her personal page how she connects to other individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raeganzottl (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the original page is very limited, so hopefully some of these ideas can help you to add some more important information. Good Luck!

Peer Review By Ruquia Rubaiet
Everything on the Wikipage looks good and here are a few things I can you could use in terms of improvement:

-Put up pictures with the biography to enhance the reader and you've put up quite a lot of relevant information for biography. Maybe if you could find something for her educational background for biography as well, that would be useful information as well. -Major themes section needs more information regarding her work and explain a little more on the misogyny on the text -Criticism needs more work in terms of how her work was effective or revolutionary and her influence on other people's work. Also, mention how her work was effective as a feminist and why she is an important individual in history as Raegan has explained. -Overall, look like a good start and continue to add more and insert pictures.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RuquiaRubaiet (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? User:KhaliaN
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Phyllis Trible Sandbox Draft

Guiding questions:

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? No, the article does not have an introduction, it automatically goes to the biography
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes, though very brief, they are present
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Yes
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Concise

Lead evaluation

 * The existing article lacked detailed information, the new additions and contributions are well written and relevant

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No

Content evaluation

 * The addition of the Major Themes and Criticism section provides a nice and very quick summary of Trible's impact to society

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Tone and balance evaluation

 * New contributions are all factual and straight to the point and avoids potential persuasion of the readers

Guiding questions:

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Sources and references evaluation

 * Scholarly sources are used and properly cited throughout the article

Guiding questions:

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? No
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation

 * The draft is very well organized and in a similar format to the existing published article
 * All citations are properly coded for the page
 * The sections are relevant and are chronologically appropriate

Images and Media
N/A

Guiding questions:

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes, the contributions made not only highlighted who Trible is but also why she is relevant
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content added specified her works and contributions along with explaining how she has impacted and influenced people
 * How can the content added be improved? If more information and resources are available, the Major Themes and Criticism sections could be further expanded

Overall evaluation

 * Proposing to add her onto the History of Feminist page is also a good idea
 * The overall contribution is well written, organized and followed proper citation settings

Agarma (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC) user:Agarma

Instructor Feedback. Note: This article has received three peer reviews.
I will be sending a general statement that applies to all or virtually all of the first drafts and peer reviews through email to every member of the class, along with the grades for the peer reviews. On these "talk" pages I will only be posting my own feedback on the first drafts.

This is a whole different kettle of fish from most of the articles, for two reasons: I have not yet talked about her in class and you are writing basically a brand new article from scratch (even if the basic biography is already there). Major props for already thinking about how to integrate her into the bigger picture and for already having your new material properly formatted. Trible’s early article on Adam and Eve is indeed extremely important but I would urge you to read it again and/or more carefully, because I really disagree that the main point of it is that the women’s movement imposes misogyny on the biblical text. She agrees that the text comes out of a patriarchal tradition and that there is a tradition of misogynistic interpretation as well, but that the text can and should also be read for ways in which it can support liberation and equality. You make it sound as if the women’s movement is the only place where Genesis is seen as misogynist. I am pretty certain that the most important thing about that Genesis article is this passage: “Ambiguity characterizes the meaning of 'adham in Genesis 2-3. On the one hand, man is the first creature formed (2:7). The Lord God puts him in the garden "to till it and keep it," a job identified with the male (cf. 3:17-19). On the other hand, 'adham is a generic term for humankind. In commanding 'adham not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the Deity is speaking to both the man and the woman (2:16-17). Until the differentiation of female and male (2:21-23), 'adham is basically androgynous: one creature incorporating two sexes.” This is a fundamental and incredibly important insight that she performed for the Hebrew bible - to understand/translate this term as humanity in general not as the man’s name Adam. You should check out the selection from Trible in the classic and phenomenally influential collection WomanSpirit Rising ed. Christ and Plaskow. A huge part of her impact came through that widely read and disseminated collection putting her work out there. It is still in print, decades later. And you can link to the Christ and Plaskow articles. And you should know about Riffat Hassan (1943 - ) a Pakistani Islamic theologian and RS Prof at U Louisville (Kentucky); she is a descendant of the prophet (via Fatima and Ali) and believes in her divinely chosen theological mission, as God’s chosen “feminist” instrument…she has been super significant as a practitioner of tafsir since the 1990s, and she is the one who originally arrived at the Islamic tafsir that the qur’anic “adam” is a sexually undifferentiated creature/humanity in general…it is generally said to be an independent revelation from Trible but I think it’s possible that she knew Trible’s work. No matter what, this way of understanding the Creation of humanity in the western monotheistic traditions really needs to be better known. You can find a pretty full appreciation of this all in JEWISH AND ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS FEMINIST EXEGESIS OF THE SACRED BOOKS: ADAM, WOMAN AND GENDER by Ruth Roded in the journal Nashim for 2015. If you cannot find it email me and I will send you a pdf. This is exactly the kind of ‘secondary” scholarship that you can and should cite on Wikipedia, because they don’t want your original research. Definitely use the Roded article because it also puts you onto other work by Trible and includes citations to the work of Hassan (who also has published extensively if you want to chase down her work, but that’s perhaps getting too far afield). Perhaps also look into her feminist interpretation of Sarah’s role and significance is in the binding of Isaac in Phyllis Trible, “Genesis 22: The Sacrifice of Sarah,” in “Not in Heaven”: Coherence and Complexity in Biblical Narrative, ed. Jason P. Rosenblatt and Joseph C. Sitterson (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991), 170–91. FeliceLifshitz (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)FeliceLifshitz