User talk:Rebxlee/sandbox

I loved you work, I think it provides too much unnecessary history and can be slimmed down a notch. --Dougsitt (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea of stressing the influence of an organization on feminism. However, I think it might be useeful to introduce the organization at the beggining with a very simple sentence such as (The All Women´s org is....), so that the reader clearly knows what you are gong to talk about. I would also add inter-wiki links, that make wikipedia connected. Otherwise I think that this is a good start for a new section in our article. Barborale (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I really like the idea of adding this section in the page because I think that it could use an activism lens in addition to the more historical lens that we are speaking to. I think you have a really good start here, but I also think it would be a good idea to link some of the words and phrases in your paragraph(s) to other Wiki pages or to explain them more thoroughly in order to make the idea clearer to the reader.Montananelson (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a really good start. Your information is clear, organized, and concise. I think you could add more wiki-links, and in the future, use more sources to develop the section. While it is good to view it through the feminist perspective, I think including more background information for the group would also be very useful to readers. Overall this is a great start. Mtatherton18 (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You could include some more information about Qi-Wang and maybe include an internal link if there is one.Caranlee (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you just need more detail, like going further into the history of China, giving more background information on why things are how they are. Maddywright (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the reader would benefit from some more context and history on China's feminism Sallyfried (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There should be some more factual evidence of what you're writing about, this would be very beneficial. Larainal (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you should add more details on the history and elaborate on the changes that have accrued.1oromo (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The article is good overall. The one suggestion I have is to look over the last sentence. It looks like your own opinion, but if not maybe cite a source or whoever this came from. Samwolff450 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I think the use of the image is good to show the symbolism of feminism in China. The information you currently have is really solid and going forward, adding more specific information about what feminism in China looked like would be beneficial to the reader. Charlieaabrams (talk) 14:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Good. I think last sentence is an unsourced conclusion and I don't understand what you're trying to say. I feel like explicit contributions weren't mentioned. I would explore more actions and contributions the org made. Also I don't understand what you're trying to say with Scholar Qi Wang; maybe I'm not reading this right, but I'm very confused. There is a lot of ambiguity with "these gender trends"; I don't know what you're referring to. Mlazarus14 (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Good job!! I really liked the use of the image you added in. I think you could add internal links for China and Human Rights Watch. --Dmastronardi (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)