User talk:KivaElk/sandbox

peer review response
=It wouldn't let me submit this on sakai so i am posting it here=

Peer review I received: From what I can gleam from the content in your sandbox, the main point on which you are focusing as it relates to the edits on your selected article is foreign policy on maternity leave and the United States’s own varied policies as it varies state by state. It seems to me that you want to contrast the foreign and domestic policies simply by having them side by side, but perhaps one could provide a little blurb or some sort to emphasize the United State’s uniqueness in not having as well-implemented a maternity leave program/funding/etc. There is a brief statement on this in the lead/introductory section, but I do find that it is awkward there, especially as the last few sentences in the lead, and that it could be better placed within the section you are proposing to amend. Furthermore, it appears that you have listed much of many individual state’s policies on maternity leave. I don’t know your whole intention with all this listed information, but my recommendation would be to not amalgamate all these policies. Keep them separate; make them into a well-organized, alphabetized list (maybe even a table?). I think that without clear subsections then the valuable wealth of information you have displayed in your sandbox would be very overwhelming to take in and even conceptualize in thought. I think the subsection(s) would also benefit from bulleted fact points instead of paragraph structure (again, maybe a table?) Further organization would also be good when considering that lots of people use Wikipedia to look for a specific piece of knowledge; if one had to sift through sentences to look for figures and policy, it could be an ineffective Wiki page. Other than what’s been stated previously, I think you are great! I am really impressed with the improvements you are making. When one considers the WIkipedia page as it is now as a whole, it is almost surprising that they don’t include something like what you’re proposing, so this is wonderful. I would say to just continue on the track you are on with those few structural changes, maybe cut back on/tighten the great amount of information you have, and then you’re golden. Great work!]

My response:

I found some aspects of my peer review very helpful. I think it made me rethink what my focus was on and how to best format it. I initially was going to have each state’s laws broken up as paragraphs but after the peer review I shifted and put everything into a table. Additionally, in the process of writing my own peer review, I realized it was important to go back again and fully copy edit the sections. I think that clarity needed to be the biggest priority in my edits. I decided not to bullet point the laws however because I thought it flowed between with them as paragraphs in the table. I also think I could still go back and simplify the language or summarize them so that it is more accessible and not so much policy jargon.

Peer review I wrote: Dear Layla, I think you have a really strong start to your edits and have clearly thought through your process. I think you have a really solid plan in terms of copyediting and adding new sources. I also think it is really amazing that you are working to translate the English page into Portuguese. since it is going to be hard for me to check on your translations ill give my PR based on the work you've done in English. It would be really interesting if you further flushed out the concept you brought up surrounding her relationship with Judaism. That would be a great area to offer more resources and provide more citations since it seems the wiki page does not have a ton about it currently. I thought your final paragraph's edits were the strongest in terms of making it more concise and strong. but you cut several sentences that were weaker regarding film and it could be a good area to expand in a more concrete and cited manner than what was previously there. Additionally, in the publications section, you mention "various book" but don't offer an explanation of what they. it could be a good section to go through and find titles and dates and offer a little more about some of her bigger works (not just the list that is currently other this section) instead of focusing on the impact of publications. I think the section as you mention in your notes that likely needs the most re-wording is the reception page because it does little to capture her impact and it structurally offers little. It also would likely be worth your time to see if there are pieces which discuss some of the modern appreciation of her work since most of the reception section focuses on critiques. All that being said in terms of impact om the page and accessibility translating the page will likely serve the best purpose. but I think it is important for you to understand where the page could be improved. I think its good to continue to make small notes on the pages you are working on and copyedit as you translate. Additionally, perhaps trying to get other copyedits made by the rest of your group to translate so that both language pages are the best they can be.

Professor Feedback Hello Elke, I have reviewed your sandbox and have also checked the dropbox and am concerned about how you are progressing with the assignment. According to your sandbox/talk page you have not reviewed your article and identified potential edits that should be made to your chosen page. You will need to (at the very least) identify potential areas for editing by the end of next week so as to provide enough information for your peer reviewing so they can give you some feedback. Please talk to me on Tuesday (during our group review/meeting) if you have any questions or if I missed material that you may have submitted. See you on Tuesday, --Dibsmith (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Professor Bensonsmith