User talk:AndrewMLeslie

This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Palo_Alto_University/Foundations_of_Clinical_Trauma_Psychology_(Fall).
Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article.

Welcome!

Hello, AndrewMLeslie, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

gender minority stress article peer review

Hi Emma, Andrew, and Taylor,

Great work on the lead, this is going to be a great article. The wiki training highlighted 5 areas to review: 1) the lead, 2)the structure, 3)balanced coverage, 4) neutral content, and 5) reliable sources. Since there are three members in my group, we decided to break each of our reviews into different areas so that you all would not receive three versions of similar edits. I looked at your lead and structure.

Regarding structure, I feel like you definitely communicated the importance of the topic to the reader, demonstrating the array of ways gender minorities encounter discrimination. Additionally, I think the lead reflects the most important information to the reader. One comment I did have about the lead is that when reading it, the paragraph felt example-heavy, listing various examples of gender minority stress. I found this style disrupted the flow of the lead. You all may want to consider reducing the number of examples in the lead and adding short introductions to the concepts addressed in the main article.

Looking at your possible header outline- Overview of Theory Theoretical development, Health and Mental Health Outcomes (including substance use), Developmental Concerns, Empirical Data Criticism and limitations, Practical applications, Social applications, Individual applications, Resiliency and Stress-Related Growth, I think this is a solid structure. I like that you are starting out with an overview of the theory, and then transitioning into health and mental health outcomes. I might consider adding developmental concerns to health and mental health outcomes, as developmental concerns seem like a natural transition into health and mental health outcomes. Similarly, I like that after outcomes you address evidence, to back up the claims made earlier in the article. One change I might consider is adding lumping, social, and individual applications into one section under smaller subheadings, and moving it before criticisms and limitations. Transitioning from outcomes to applications seems like a more linear transition to me, then wrapping up with limitations and criticisms. Again, great job, it should be a good one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rksheikh (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the balance of your lead section- While the lead provides a great definition of what gender minority stress is and different contexts where gender minority stress may be evident, but could also be strengthened by adding more sections. For example, adding a small section on the different treatment and/or interventions available for gender minority stress. Another example would be to add more information to the developmental considerations by providing some examples. I think this would give the lead section more balance. You guys do a great job on covering all the different contexts gender minority stress may be shown, and they do not try and convince the reader to accept a particular point of view either.DannyHarmon (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The peer review training requires that we discuss 5 areas to review: My group members chose the first three to review 1) lead 2) structure 3) balanced coverage. I will review 4) neutral content and 5) reliable sources.

The term "Gender minority stress" was not clearly defined in this lead section. What constitutes “gender minority?” How is a “gender minority” individual different than a “sexual minority” individual?” (I assumed them to be the same). Also, the lead opens with the statement “Gender Minority Stress describes the distinct types of stressors encountered by individuals of gender minority groups.” This statement is not dissecting what gender minority stress truly means, it is just repeating the words “gender” and “stress:” “gender minority stress is stress experienced by gender minorities” This is not telling us anything new. What type of stress occurs for gender minority groups? What type of negative health problems occur as a result of the stress? Depression? Suicidal ideation?

Neutral Content: • Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? The perspective (point-of-view POV) of the author seems partial and biased. The author seems to highlight the stressors experienced by gender minority groups with statements such as: “gender minorities encounter stressors which place them at uniquely increased risk for experiencing negative health outcomes” and “they experience bullying, physical violence, threat of violence, intimate partner violence, exclusion from access to appropriate restroom facilities…and more recently exclusion from participation in military service.” The author seems to overemphasize the exclusion and poor treatment experienced by gender minority groups. The article seems to present only negative information regarding gender minority stress, thus the article feels very one-sided and biased. • Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." The following phrase does not feel neutral: “While individuals within gender minority groups may face the same or similar stressors as other minorities such as sexual minorities, they encounter stressors which place them at uniquely increased risk for experiencing negative health outcomes…poorer treatment while in institutional facilities.” The article seems biased towards individuals in gender minority groups because it states that although this particular group may face similar stressors as other minorities (sexual minorities)…gender minorities, in particular, experience more negative outcomes and poorer treatment. The article feels very set on making gender minority groups out to be the minority group that is treated significantly unfair in comparison to other minority groups. • Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." The article does not make claims on behalf of unnamed groups. • Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The author seems to highlight only the negative information regarding gender minority stress. The article only mentions the negative treatment towards gender minority groups such as “verbal and sexual harrassment, social alienation (Miller & Grollman, 2015), being "misgendered" --being addressed with inappropriate Gender pronouns (McLemore, 2016), bullying, physical violence or threat of violence (Testa et al., 2012), intimate partner violence, exclusion from access to appropriate restroom facilities (Seelman, 2016), exclusion from access to necessary and appropriate healthcare treatment…” The article does not mention the various aspects of the topic regarding gender minority stress. The article would’ve felt more objective by mentioning the potential resilience and protective factors of gender minorities as a result of gender minority stress, or the potential solutions to gender minority stress. In order for this article to feel more neutral, the negative treatment and outcome of gender minority stress should be mentioned, but also the potential buffers of gender minority stress, or how gender minority stress could potentially produce post-traumatic growth within the gender minority individual.

Reliable Sources: • Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Most statements in the article seems to be connected to reliable sources, particularly journals. • Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. The reference sources seem to be evenly distributed throughout the article. • Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! One source “Stories from the Field” is connected to two in-text citations in the article, but this source is not included in the reference section. In addition, the source does not appear to be a journal article or textbook so it is unclear if it is a blog or website article. In addition, there is an in-text citation that includes the source McLemore, 2016, but this source is included in the reference section as McLemore, 2015. Also, there is an in-text citation that includes the source Lambda Legal, 2010, but this source is not listed in the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madekale (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gender Minority Stress (December 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Thanks for the submission, but I don't think it can be approved as written. In addition to the page reading like an essay, the content can be covered under the page Minority stress which already exists, making this a WP:CFORK. Of course that is just my assessment and I would recommend using the Teahouse if you have any questions or would like another opinion.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gender Minority Stress and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gender Minority Stress, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! AndrewMLeslie, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 00:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gender Minority Stress

Hello, AndrewMLeslie. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gender Minority Stress".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]