User talk:Mccackenja

Your submission at Articles for creation: Birth in Iraq has been accepted
 Birth in Iraq, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Mccackenja help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Had to trim a lot, but published Birth in Iraq
You have some great content here, so I went ahead and published after some cleanup.

For future reference, you had way too much extraneous information here. Everything in this article should be directly related to birth in Iraq. So there's zero need to talk about Iraq's "long and rich history" because a reader can just click History of Iraq if they want that. Similarly, it is misleading to have sections about Muslim birth traditions in general, unless you have useful things to cite about how this applies to Iraq specifically. In short, Wikipedia articles are not essays, they don't "set the scene", they just directly address the topic, without segue.

I'm looking at similar articles Birth in Thailand and Birth in Japan, and while they have good data, unfortunately they set a bad example because they spend way much time discussing non-birth related history, etc. I would suggest that instead you take a look at an article like Health in Japan or Health in Australia to get an idea of how to introduce a topic and remain focused on it.

The very first sentences of your article should directly discuss the precise topic, whereas now you have several paragraphs until you even tell us what you're talking about. I've made some basic fixes for you, and also adjusted the section heading format since you didn't have that quite right (WP articles don't generally use the "=" headings, they start with the "==" headings). Overall, great article, strong use of proper sourcing, and valuable contribution! MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)