User talk:Vwdesmondi

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Welcome!
Hello, Vwdesmondi, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Reply
Hi. User:Shalor (Wiki Ed) is actually the Wikipedia expert assigned to your class. You should get in touch with her. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: Missing Citations and Critique of Claim for Likelihood to be Granted Asylum
The first note I had was that the claim that “After 2001, asylum officers and immigration judges became less likely to grant asylum to applicants, presumably because of the attacks on 11 September.[15]” is a slightly biased

The study concludes


 * “Considerations relating to physical integrity abuses, which are supposed to be at the heart of asylum decisions, seem to matter more at the initial stage of the process, where asylum officers screen claims, than they do for the immigration judges. However, we remain cautious, for it could be that asylum officers disproportionately accept asylum applicants in cases from human rights–abusing countries, thus biasing the sample of cases that are left for judges to decide. With a similar caveat in mind, it does appear that judges are more apt to grant asylum to persons from countries that are important to US security, evidenced by the receipt of US military aid. And asylum officers are evidently willing to deny claims from persons hailing from English-speaking countries, but are more cautious than judges in denying cases involving persons from Arabic- and Spanish-speaking countries”

and that “Asylum officers were more apt to deny claims after 2001..” linking tentatively to the terrorist attacks of “the same year.” This does not indicate a continuous regression in granting asylum. In order to make this claim, there should be a more recent statistics from 2009-2017 to make the claim.

The second thought I had was that as a very large article, this could do with some reorganization. The information on the Individual Application section is very long, breaking down to specific examples of cases where asylum was granted. These cases could be integrated into the subset of refugee claim examples, as the law cannot be separated from the experience of refugee claims.

The final thing I want to note in this article is the state of citations. The “Relevant Law and procedures” section has no citations, and neither does “Character of refugee inflows and resettlement.” The Section Film Has three points where citations have been documented as needed. The link in Citation 10 is broken. This article could do with clarifying where what information is coming from, as it is not clear if the un-cited sections are due to the source book on the bottom of the page.--Vwdesmondi (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes on draft
Hi - I wanted to give you some feedback on your draft. First, let me say that this is an incredibly interesting and compelling draft and I was horrified at what I read. However, therein lies the issue - the draft is written as more of a persuasive piece than a neutral article. This needs some work, as it mostly serves to discuss the injustice and distress caused by a county (or really, countries since Canada is influenced by multiple countries) judging a person's gay-ness by a rather strict and slim, likely even stereotypical set of standards. Basically, the reader shouldn't be able to pick up on the viewpoint of the work's author. It's understandably hard to do this normally and it's even more difficult with topics like this, but it can be done, so don't worry. To be honest, I think that this could probably be resolved with the addition of some other information and a bit of a layout shift.

I think that the article could have a layout like as follows:
 * Article lead with title (I don't think you have to change a thing with your lead)
 * A section that gives a very brief overview of LGBT in Canada (maybe go from the Timeline of LGBT history in Canada and link to the article on LGBT in Canada, which would have more information)
 * Section with history about the history of LGBT refugees in Canada - basically, when did this start? Were any laws passed for this and if so, which ones?
 * Demographics section, if there is available information or studies about this. This would pretty much be stuff like who is typically approved for refugee status. You have some of this in the article already, but this would be a section that's specifically only about refugee demographics, like their age, gender identity, sexuality, and if possible, where the most common areas are that they live after being granted refugee status.
 * Requirements for application and the application process. You also had a bit of this in the "LGBT and SOGI Experience in Canada as a refugee or asylum seeker" section, however like the previous section this would just list the requirements and the process in a "matter of fact" manner.
 * Here's where you would have the information that you currently have in the "LGBT and SOGI Experience in Canada as a refugee or asylum seeker" section. While the prior sections were just a basic listing of details, this would make up the criticism and debate section, where you could post the researchers' and critics' viewpoints on the matter. Since the other sections were neutral this would make the criticism and debate section less persuasive per se.

I think that a lot of this would just be shifting material around and tweaking it to fit the section and I'd wager that you probably have most of this information already on hand from your research, given that your draft seems very well researched in its current state. Let me know if you have any questions! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)