User talk:SarahA99/International Gender and Language Association

Peer Review

I think you are on the right track for what should be included in the wiki page. Information_Systems_Security_Association This page is for another association and though there is not a lot of information, the organization of the page is very well done. You can also talk about how many chapters they have and the total amount of countries they are in if you can find that information. You can also update the conference section in the original page as well. I think you should separate the history and goal into two different sections. Even if the history section is small, it would be better to have the goals of the organization separate from the history.Flamecinch2 (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Flamecinch2: Though the information about the countries involved may prove tricky to find, inclusion of it can be a good idea. About the history and goals, what we were thinking was something along the lines of when, where and why IGALA was founded, hence the unity of goals and history. But if we find an extensive description of IGALA's goals and purposes somewhere, I believe the separation would be the sensible thing to do. Hammed.MP (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Replying to Flamecinch2: IGALA has so many contributors from around the world. That could make mentioning all of them a problem. But I think some of them can be mentioned. I also think if the goals of IGALA are many and have been stated in detail somewhere, the separation is a good idea. Samira Hamzehei (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Replying to Flamecinch2: Thank you so much. I think it's a great idea to list the countries/places where the organization is active. We may be able to add a section for that. [User: Sarah Assaf] 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Everything you've discussed about including is relevant and good ideas. I want to make sure that I point out that the list at the top of your sandbox says "Introduction to Them" quite a ways down the list when it sounds like that should be your lead. So far everything seems very neutral, but there's not many claims being made since we all have outlines more than we do flushed out drafts. I don't know much about this particular organization, but you might check to see if they have had any controversy or push-back in their history so that you can cover that as well and expand the viewpoint. All your sources look good so far, I think you need to find some more for history though. I agree that you should have the goals of the organization separate from the history, unless it is absolutely inseparable and their goals evolved because of their history or something like that. Best of luck and good outline! Cesayvonne (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Replying to Cesayvonne: I agree with your points on the history of IGALA and its goals but so far what Hammed.MP said above seems to be the case. I am also a little uneasy about including controversy since the page will be made public and that may receive some negative reaction. But it is a very exciting suggestion and I think we should talk about it as a group to make a final decision. Samira Hamzehei (talk) 17:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Cesayvonne: It is true that the idea of push-backs tickles interest in viewers, but I think for a public page we need to be cautious about what we cover. Yet I guess something that has had an influence in where this organisation has been headed, it should be mentioned. Hammed.MP (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Cesayvonne: Yeah that is true. Perhaps it would be better if we just included it in the lead rather than creating another section unnecessarily. [user: Sarah Assaf] 7 April 2020