User talk:Teagan999/sandbox

Peer Review
Hey, I really enjoyed reading this article! Super interesting, and I had no idea who Rigoberta Menchu was before reading this. I think there is a lot of really good information in here about her activism and political activities, but I think (if you can find good sources), it would be really helpful to find some sources specifically on feminism or what she has done for women. In terms of the organization of the article, I like the new sections that you added. I would probably move the politics section above the international activism (I think you've written that as a note but I wasn't sure if that is what you were trying to say!). Also, in the controversies section at the end of the article, it seems like there is only one real criticism against Menchu, and the rest of the section talks about how that person was wrong. I wonder if you could cut that section down, or even take it out? The research defending Menchu is useful, but it seems like the thing they are defending against doesn't really have much validity. Hope that helps!

KhaliaN (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Yes, it was my intention to move "politics" above international activism and make it a subsection of Guatemalan activism. The controversy section does seem very out of proportion for the rest of her article, and I agree that the sources aren't very solid. I also think that this undermines her importance to the History of Feminism, and as an activist in general. However, when I was reading the talk page and edit history for the main article, it was primarily edit wars in the controversy section. I feel like even if I were to edit this section, someone would just change it back, so I am trying not to spend too much of my time there. I appreciate your comments about focusing more specifically on feminism, and I will try to research more into the intersectionality behind her activism and see what role gender played. Thanks again! Teagan999 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
General info

Whose work are you reviewing? Teagan999 Link to draft you're reviewing:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Teagan999/sandbox

Lead

Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?: Yes, you added "internationally" to tie in your new section about her international activism.

Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?: Yes

Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?: No, but it seems like the section organization isn't final yet.

Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?: No

Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?: It's adequately concise. Maybe consider adding why she's significant/well known like "(name) is a Guatemalan activist known for her contributions to (feminism/anti imperialism/ whatever)."

Lead evaluation: It'll probably grow as your article does.

Content

Is the content added relevant to the topic?: Yes

Is the content added up-to-date?: Yes

Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?: I'd say the controversy section is too long, but I can see there's a heated debate on the talk page and it'll be tough for you to change, I don't envy you at all. I'd suggest tackling it sort of like "Following her Nobel Prize win, Stoll released (book name) questioning the authenticity of her backstory.(cite stoll) Several writers have criticized Stoll's claim (cite Sanford, Grandin) and while acknowledging some parts may have been fabricated to fit a larger narrative of Guatamalan poverty. Nobel assoc refused to rescind her award and Stoll agrees much of her narrative is factual and she deserves her award.(cite Stoll, Grandin)." Even if they remove it, the prof will see your work so I think it's worth changing. Maybe try adding the (proven factual) details about her past like losing most of her family to her bio. Other than that, consider adding a section discussing her publications and career in writing, as well as emphasizing her connections to feminism. Content evaluation: It could use more development in the other sections.

Tone and Balance

Is the content added neutral?: Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?: No

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?: As above, controversy may be overrepresented.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?: Other than controversy, no.

Tone and balance evaluation: the long controversy section (although I know people in the talk page are saying the opposite) distracts from the rest of the info. It's longer and better cited than other sections and I think a reader could walk away thinking this controversy was the most significant thing she's a part of or thinking she's now fallen out of favour or lost all credibility when that's false. The controversy shouldn't be treated with equal length and attention than to her whole career (obviously not your fault though.)

Sources and References:

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?: Not all of it, there's no citations in international section. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?: Amount of sources is low. Are the sources current?: Yes Check a few links. Do they work?: Yes Sources and references evaluation: It needs more sources but it seems like you have some and haven't put it together yet. Try to find short works by her to cite as good primary sources and look for writing on Guatemalan activism during the invasion.

Organization

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?: It's pretty concise but the article doesn't really form a cohesive whole yet.

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?: No

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?: Organization isn't intuitive or chronological.

Organization evaluation: The organization is probably going to be one of your main issues in fixing this article. I might set it up like Early Life and Guatemalan War (her activism in this period and her exile), Activism after the war (including internationally and her writing), In Popular culture (nobel controversy, legacy in guatemala, sub section for awards?) and personal life (children? recent work like the bit about her not wanting intervention in 2019?) Obviously, you know the topic much better than I do but what I mean is that I think it would be more valuable to try and capture different periods of her life in chronological order rather than separated into domestic/international and if it was more like she started domestically then expanded, sum that up as different eras of her activism.

Images and Media: N/A.

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?: Yes

What are the strengths of the content added?: The international section is important and also it looks like you did a lot of fact checking and editing.

How can the content added be improved?: Re-organize the sections chronologically or otherwise with the goal of telling us about her life the way she might. Look at interviews and see what she thinks is most important about her work (does she divide it by time, domestic/global, or cause like feminist activism vs anti-imperialism?) when it started, the history that was relevant to her, etc. and organize accordingly. Cut down on the controversy section which could be confusing to readers and harm Menchu's credibility and generally try to balance the sections. Overall evaluation: You seem like you're on the right path and you're doing a good job, focus on organization and research. Hadford (talk) 00:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback! I appreciate your thoughts on the organization of the article, and how to sum up the controversy section. My next step will definitely be to work on the sources, there are a few I have been looking at but I want to find more and make sure they match up before I make them live (otherwise I anticipate they will be attacked and/or taken down quite quickly). Most of the work in the international section is from the original article, and is cited on the main page but it is also my plan to double check those sources. So far I have only added sources for some of the new content I have developed. Thanks again! Teagan999 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review By Ruquia Rubaiet
Everything looks great and as you mentioned on your sandbox as to how you're approaching this article in terms of what you need to do further. I think you've got enough good feedbacks and here's a few things I would like to mention for improvement: -Since it is a long text and you've acquired really good amount of information, I think you would benefit from adding a few pictures reader's attention. -All the headings are there and you put lot of information too but I think it would look cleaner to get rid of the crossed lines of your text. - You've talked about the movements by her but mention a bit more as to how the movements made an impact in real life works and has her work influenced others? did her work make an impact?

-On the publications tab, perhaps touch base on her works and a little blurb of her written works.

-Overall, look great as mentioned before. Just a few tweaks here and there to make it legible and cleaner as well as keep adding more and insert pictures. RuquiaRubaiet (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)RuquiaRubaiet/sandbox

Hey, thanks for your feedback! I realize the article looks quite messy at the moment, the intention was that those doing peer reviews would be able to see exactly where I have made changes, and it will be easier for me to keep track of my own edits when I make it live. I will definitely be getting rid of the crossed lines, and different font sizes. I haven't gotten to pictures yet, but it is on my to-do list. Thanks again! Teagan999 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Instructor Feedback. Note: This article has received three peer reviews.
You are doing a fantastic job and I am really looking forward to where this goes in the end. I bet you will end up being able to be very proud of your work. You seem to have the matter well in hand but I would say one major thing about what you should be adding: Focus on feminism, and on the ways in which all of these types of activism and concerns are FEMINIST and above all belong to indigenous feminism, which often focuses on issues around the environment and around poverty/impoverishment of populations by racist regimes…Focus on her as an indigenous feminist and on explaining what that means, and see if you can get the article connected to the History of Feminism section (meaning getting that rectangular badge “part of a series on Feminism” or “History of Feminism” onto the page at the upper right hand). Anyway, the way to do this is to do some serious reading on indigenous feminisms and filling in/out context from that, with citations to the scholarship you read. Also, read the testimonio as soon as you can (if you haven’t already); you can cite from it yourself…There are so many fantastic quotes in there about indigenous (especially Mayan identity) and also about the rural world of agrarian labor. It might also be possible to parallel her with Dolores Huerta as spokespeople for justice towards those who do the backbreaking work of agricultural labor and to insert her that way also into an international landscape of activism. When I simply put “Indigenous feminism” into the main search bar in the library, I get 175 hits, and the first few pages are full of recent books that look excellent – a quick skim through those (electronically, or go stand by the relevant shelf in the library) will almost certainly get you a lot of excellent background and context and possibly also more specific information related to Rigoberta herself.--FeliceLifshitz (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)