User talk:Siboyle/sandbox

Article Review
Hi Sarah,

Great draft of your article. I think the contributions you made really improve the article and I especially like the quotes of Janay Rice that you included. Usually quotes aren’t used on Wikipedia because they don’t add anything that couldn’t be paraphrased but I think giving Janay a literal “voice” on this topic is really important.

I have only a few suggestions for you to consider because your writing is so clear and concise! One suggestion I have is to move the description of the hashtag so that it is the first sentence of your article. Because the article is about the hashtag campaign and not the domestic violence situation that inspired it, it might be more effective to use a description of the campaign as your hook.

I also think it might be helpful for you to organize the information into subcategories so that the creation of the movement is the first body paragraph, followed by a section on the events that transpired between Ray and Janay Rice and then another section about the twitter responses to the hashtag (reasons that survivors of abuse explained as their reasons for staying/leaving). You could also have another section on “Misuse of the Hashtag” that includes the DiGiorno incident. One section that I don’t think you have enough information on yet is on public scrutiny of Janay Rice and on Ray Rice. What were the repercussions for him? How did people react to the choice she made to stay with Rice?

Additionally, the sentence copied below is a little confusing to follow because you did not include any information about Gooden’s rationale for staying with her partner before you contrasted it with Janay’s rationale. Here is the sentence I am referring to: Janay's reason for staying with Ray differed from that of Gooden's and many other abuse victims who shared their stories via the trending hashtag. While Gooden's rationale for staying was that it was step one in her move to eventually leave her abusive relationship, Janay explained that she has no intention of divorcing her now-husband and does not view herself as an abuse victim.

Lastly, I think there is an error in your references because references 6, 7, and 8 are not found as footnotes within the text. They are found as blank citations above the actual references. Also, if you would like to make your page like most Wikipedia articles, you could change “Bibliography” to “References” as the title of your works cited section.

I know I wrote a lot of suggestions but I don’t want you to think that your changes aren’t awesome! All of the hard work you have done in rewriting the article is great. However, clarity could be improved by switching around the order of some of your sentences and organizing them into sections.

I hope this helps! Good luck! —jrseidm (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review 2
Hi Sarah, I just noticed this peer review #2 over on the article's talk page left by Ayanna. She must have been confused about where exactly to post it -- but it has sparked an exciting comment on the talk page that you might want to respond to! So I'll just point your attention to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:WhyIStayed/WhyILeft

You might want to tell the Wikipedia editor (if you do respond) that you have some edits in your user sandbox that you have been working on and are about to integrate into the article and you'd welcome any suggestions she has for you!

--Jmstew2 (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Instructor Comments
Really nice work, Sarah. A few small things: 1) I agree with Jordyn about introducing Gooden's reason for leaving before stating that Janay's was different, 2) I found the insertion of Janay's quote in the opening sentence to be confusing. I would move that quote down to the section about her, since it's unclear that that quote serves as evidence of her defense of Ray (it seems merely to imply a criticism of the public scrutiny -- I don't think the two things are necessarily the same), 3) I know you didn't add this section, but the insertion of "she wrote" after the first sentence in Gooden's block quote seems clunky to me. It would be improved if you check the site and see if she wrote all of that and insert ellipses in place of "she wrote, 4) because you are inserting sentences into an already existing article, just be careful to keep all existing citations in place! Feel free to move your work over to the main article when you feel ready. The Wiki Ed staff recommends moving things in a couple smaller bursts, to prevent jumpy editors from deleting the changes. i don't think this is a big risk with this article, since it doesn't seem very active! I think it would probably be fine to go ahead and add everything, but if you'd prefer to play it safe I would recommend adding the changes to the overview and the "Misuse of Hashtag" section (including new section header) first. Then wait a few days before adding the Janay Rice section -- we could potentially do this at our meeting, depending on when we have it. --Jmstew2 (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)