User talk:Queenbook2021

Welcome!
Hello, Queenbook2021, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Elysia 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. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Dylan's Peer Review
Hi Queenie,

Area: Starting with positives, I think it is best that you decided to make new subsections in your chosen articles since it gives you the room to elaborate and shed light on an important underpresented issue. For the most part I think you do a good job of presenting the information in a neutral context, but the neutrality can be skewed by unnecessary information.

The major way I see there could be an improvement is there are a few lines that, while true and definitely part of the picture, are not fundamental. Since wiki is a summary, keeping your section short and to the point will actually make it more impactful. Other times the information should stay but the sentence structure itself would benefit from shortening (Am I right to say that's part of your concern that your writing may sound too much like an essay?) For example, "When looking at the cultural sphere of economic instability for the family, men are pressured more to contribute a larger portion of financial income compared to their spouse or partner. If they cannot perform this task they may feel that their masculine domestic control diminishes and appeal from their spouse or partner.[2]" is true and is a relevant shaping factor, but it is not a standalone point. To shorten it and strengthen your point, consider something like "Cultural expectations on men to provide the primary household income contribute to women's financial dependence and decreased mobility in abusive relationships." It also seems in your bullet points, the last two are the most potent, and gambling and infidelity are contributive stressors that can be sectioned beneath the other two, or combined. Again, it is not a bad thing to have fewer words or shorter sentences. A good rule of thumb is that when you are done editing, every sentence should be critical to the paragraph, there should be no extraneous or over-expounded content.

Sector: Here I will focus on a few examples. Clearly state topic sentence: Under the "Community based healing for Domestic Violence" I don't see a definition of what community based healing means, entails, looks like, etc. Remember to cover the basics before getting into specifics! Sentence clarity: "The domain of domestic violence can be dictated by where a women lives and the cultural and societal aspect of it could be controlled, constructing the the rights of a woman's body and their personal decisions may not be feasible and out of their power.[6]" I'm confused by this opening sentence. That may be because of the challenge it is to paraphrase academic work into everyday language, try reading the sentences out loud to see if it sounds like something you would say in a presentation to people who are uninformed on the topic, or to high schoolers. Maintain neutrality: " In a more tight-knit communities and culture, individualized therapy may not be the best approach for healing, instead focusing on reshaping the communities understanding of personal control over their body and expanding existing resources may be better alternative to the Western-style of healing." Your point is good, and important. However, credibility is weakened when presented as an opinion, specifically the word "better" is not evidence. You can make the connection between existing cultural norms and approaches that align with and complement those values by stating that exact fact.

I love what you are covering so far! I think the topic is very important and the research you are adding is helpful/informative to the reader. Most of the improvement areas would be significantly helped simply by shortening your sentences and removing unnecessary fluff, to focus on the key points you are making.

thanks, DylanGlobalera (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review
Hi Dylan,

Thank you so much for the constructive criticism! You made sure to point out the strength and weaknesses of my articles and how I can improve it. I also thought my writings should be direct to the point instead of going on about it or in your thoughts "fluffy". I will definitely use the wordings that you have suggested since it shows a strong causal correlation and with a brief explanation. I guess the next problem I need to focus on is adding more citations and trying to look as if it is bias.

Management of domestic violence
Please be aware I have removed some of your additions to this page, the references you have added are links to your sandbox, which does not constitute a reference. Please read WP:CITE for instructions on how to do it properly-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have fixed the issue pointed out above. In the future, make sure that you follow directions carefully for moving content out of the sandbox and into mainspace. You should only copy content from the sandbox when you are in "edit" mode--otherwise, the references will break. Thanks, Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)