Jump to content

User talk:Adadamo1/sandbox

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Feedback

[edit]

Needs proofreading for misspellings and punctuation errors.

  • Commas after introductory phrases or to avoid run on sentences
  • You can omit the ending punctuation of a quote from an article if your sentence continues on afterwards:
  • Ex: "Gender Based Violence (GBV) is the leading cause of death in women aged 19 to 44." [2] Largely attributed to men's attitudes towards women in Nepal.
  • Instead: "Gender Based Violence (GBV) is the leading cause of death in women aged 19 to 44" which is largely attributed to men's attitudes towards women in Nepal.
  1. This seems also like a loaded statement. While I would assume that it is mostly or "all" men who are perpetrators of violence against women in Nepal, but I only assume this because the patriarchy can fuel a type of thinking that men hold most or all of the power and can exert that power against women, who in Nepal, are seen as inferior. A statement followed by a reason for that statement would better help readers understand what is being said.
  2. I see now that the sentence afterwards addresses the why but I think there could be a better flow to show a clear relation of the two statements.


  • "One-third (35 percent) of women in Nepal experience GBV at home, although most violence is unreported and unrecorded in informal or formal institutions."[3] Many of these cases will go unreported.
  • Also, here, I think the second sentence would benefit from having a reason as to why many cases of violence against women in Nepal go unreported.
  • For example, "In Nepal>comma< there are many legalized patriarchal values under Malikhain (Nepal national code)>period<


For your "individual" section, since the Feminism in Nepal Wiki page doesn't have an individuals section, and you are basically creating that section, I would remember to add the bold heading.

Reference citations are needed after each of the statistics just to show that each statistic has a resource backing it, even if they're all from the same source. I think some information could use a reference citation after the sentence from which you pulled that information from just so Wikipedia critics don't get upset that the info isn't sourced.


Overall, I think the article is great with its structure and the information that composes the article is all good stuff. There is only a few simple mistakes like misspelling or punctuation, and a better flow between some sentences would greatly improve your article and prepare it for the mainspace.

Amandaluh (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]