User talk:Samanthadies/sandbox

Julia's peer editing questions response to draft one edits: Does the writer employ concise, plain language? Are any sentences awkward or lengthy? Are there any weasel words? What revisions or proofreading to individual sentences would you recommend? - Edit from section on politics is very informed, but the sentence is a little long. I would recommend splitting it up into two sentences. - The two award edits sound very similar maybe consider editing so that those awards aren’t one after the other - First edit for section on activism is a little wordy, consider cutting down a little bit - When writing about the David John article, the edit might be too much of an analytical view leading to potential bias issues, maybe edit this section so   it is a little more monotone. Does each sentence convey a factual claim? Is each sentence cited? One citation per statement is the minimum expectation. No original research should be included. - No revisions are needed when it comes to the citations - All sentences are cited very clearly and no original research is included Does each sentence attribute viewpoints to the people who hold them/the source? Does the writer need to add signal phrases? - No signal phrases need to be added - Each sentence does a good job of identifying the person who holds the view point presented - All authors are introduced and their qualifications are stated, which is really important If writer has composed an entire paragraph, does it flow logically? Is anything unclear to you? - There aren’t any full paragraphs added, the longest section written regards some of the controversy the book is faced with, but it flows really nicely from one author’s viewpoint to another Do you need more information or clarifications to understand the drafted materials? - No it seems that the newly drafted edits help alleviate the issue of more relevant information included in the wikipedia article If the drafted materials is to be included in the lead-in section, review relevant Wikipedia guidelines. - Minor edits are made to the lead section and are within Wikipedia guidelines for a lead-in section

Lauren's Response to Samantha's Edits
Lead Section Comments - Maybe add what other works, just to give some context. Possibly, just some of of the more famous works. That may be the intention but I think it leaves more questions when added.

Section on Politics Comments - Almost a run on sentence and kind of confusing. - A writer for the Washington Report on Hemisphere, Adam Zuckerman, wrote that despite promising hope of reuniting and bringing justice to Guatemala's indigenous population, Menchú's candidacy failed because she elected to run as part of a new political party instead of part of an established one and because of her lack of political experience. (maybe just a wording thing, but adds some clarification to the sentence)

Section on Activism - I would change this sentence into two - She has served as president of "Salud para Todos" since 2003 and has opened pharmacies all over Guatemala. There has also been major pushback from large pharmaceutical companies due to her desire to shorten the patent and increase availability and affordability of certain AIDS and Cancer drugs.

Section on Controversies about her Testimony John Beverly, author of The Margin at the Center: on Testimonio (Testimonial Narrative), describes the genre Testimonio as "documentary fiction" due to the other genres in encompasses(delete), including autobiography, confession, interview, and diary.[3]

Concluding Thoughts - Aside from a couple thoughts to clarifying the sentences you added I feel like the support and citations are there. Everything seems to be unbiased and factual, which is hard to do so I commend you. - You're paragraph that you added int eh controversies section was very much needed to balance out the bias in this section. It also flows very well and fits into the already there information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren cox21 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)