User talk:ReedNatalie/sandbox

Peer Review
Hey guys! I think the work you've all done is really amazing and would be a great addition to the Wiki article. I feel like you guys found and included a variety of really good sources. I also found everything you've written to have a neutral tone and was all relevant to the topic. I really don't have much to address other than 2 small details: The sentence on PCOS seems a bit sudden and out of place, if that makes sense. I wonder if it can be placed anywhere else to help improve the flow. Also, linking PCOS to its corresponding Wiki article would be helpful for readers who don't know much about it. The other suggestion is at the bottom for the race and reproductive health section, it could be better to more directly link HIV to women's reproductive health just to make it super clear to anyone reading what the connections are and why it's relevant here. That's it from me! Awesome job guys, I truly enjoyed reading all the new drafted content. --Amyzhou314 (talk) 06:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Overall, you all did a great job with your edits! I left some feedback in my peer review. Rani110 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Prof Fdbk
Hi some feedback below-- --Liliput000 (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the sentence you add to the lead is great; even if it feels tangential or redundant I think it's important to have a source; pull from one of the ones you have already?
 * it would help if you were clear as to which subsection will go where -- does PCOS go into Sexual Health?; Fertility Awareness goes into Contraception...; Race and Repro Health, ART... standalone subsections? let's figure this part out
 * PCOS section -- "Many women in the U.S. are affected by" seems like a not great way to start the section in that it's a bit vague - if you can't readily get stats on what "many" is consider rephrasing to sthg like "PCOS is prevalent among women in the U.S."; similarly, "In the past," is a vague way to start a sentence; "previously" will work better here, and it should read "research on" not "of"
 * (ALL) it's appropriate to add a "see also PCOS/ART/etc" and link to the main page at the top of your subsection
 * (PCOS) any other sources you can throw in the mix? Just to help optics, and I know there are others on this (hopefully!!)
 * Fertility Awareness s'n - revise "Women can monitor her" to their; "One benefit of using fertility awareness based method is" revise this too
 * Race s'n -- "There is also a gap in contraceptive use between white and Black women" you should also mention the role of bias and history of experimentation as a contributing factor for this
 * overall these are important additions, but I want you to think in context of wiki as a whole and link out as appropriate (and, link IN to your page, too, as appropriate)
 * PS do look over the reviews you got; Rani110 made some helpful suggestions...

2nd round Prof Fdbk
Hi --Liliput000 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * do we have a source for the sentence you're adding to the lead?
 * maybe the PCOS and ART can be grouped into a category of "Reproductive Problems" and have "Sexual Health" stand alone. That section is a bit in need of revision anyway, and you can note that in the talk page for any next group coming along to edit...
 * Race section: 1. Add a "see also: Weathering Hypothesis" at the top of your subsection. This group is working on a Maternal Health subsection, and when it's up you can see also that specific section. 2. Aso, I suggest reorganizing (you can even make mini subheadings if you want): start with "Background" which includes the history of discrimination and experimentation; then flip the order of contraception and HIV/AIDS in your paragraph; then you can follow with maternal mortality (but link to this one, too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_maternal_mortality_in_the_United_States), and then also pull in those sentences in from ART per the reviewer recommendation...