User talk:LemonisLime

Welcome!
Hello, LemonisLime, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Cunt
In the very bold article Cunt, the author’s make very sexism drove statements. The sub topics in the article were very relevant to the actual topic itself. The only thing that stuck out to me was when the word “nigger” was said to be a more taboo word. Though I agree with this statement, I feel as though this created a distraction in the article’s focus point. I would say this article is bold. I didn’t find that it leaned toward any specific point of view, but there were some wild concepts being brought up. For example, the definition being that it’s an insult toward women in the Merriam Webster dictionary. Some of the citations did not make sense to me. There were a couple links to very outdated articles. I would say that I wish they had continuously updated the article with the changing times. For instance, they could have updated to “Grand Theft Auto Five” rather than “Getaway Black Monday” when using seism in video games as an example. Most facts are linked to other Wikipedia articles, when I review the citations through these linked articles they are mostly reliable unbiased sources. The bias of course is never noted directly through the article, but it is mentioned through the talk pages. As previously mentioned this article is out of date in it’s sources also in its content. `Most of the conversations on the talk page are about things that the writers have already changed. This is a grade C article and is on the path to achieving its rhetorical objective.

Women in El Salvador
Gender Equality in El Salvador is a very well written article used to represent the laws protecting all men and women in El Salvador. Throughout the entire article, nothing had stuck out to me. I found this article to be neutral, however it only spoken from a third-party view. I feel as if the information on Domestic Violence and on Political involvement of Women in El Salvador could include more information, as both sections were very brief. Some of the citations did not have working links, and the consistency of the style of citations was not uniform. I found a few facts that were referenced from some untrustworthy looking websites, and with the untrustworthy appearances, comes a lot of bias favoring women. A lot of information is dates from 2011-2012. To improve, they can update the statistics and use websites that constantly have updated information. I wish that there were more facts and statistics provided about women in El Salvador in general. The talk page was filled with simple suggestions about expanding on certain subjects to provide readers with the most abundant and recent information possible. The article is graded as a C and is not currently apart of any WikiProjects. I don’t believe this object quite got to its rhetorical objective yet, but once worked on it can be written to its full potential. LemonisLime (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.
Please complete the assigned training modules. --LABotelho (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.
Please complete the assigned training modules. --Matthewvetter (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)