User talk:Eap7/sandbox
Eap7's Peer Review
[edit]Sector Peer review
[edit]This section of your contribution is missing a lead, which would help the reader know right away what you intend to talk about in the section. The role of the last paragraph is clear to me, but I think some of the information is repeated in the first two paragraphs. The first paragraph starts with the the stance of the UN, then talks about the impact of women in agriculture. The next paragraph then goes back to the origin of the women's movement that led to the UN's stance. Maybe presenting the origin first, leading to the position taken by the UN and then to the outcomes of the actions they undertook would be easier to follow. Also, the first sentence of the second paragraph sounds like an attempt at convincing the reader, primarily because there is no citation added to it. The other sources present in the section are also not trackable, which makes it hard for the reader to gauge on their reliability. I like that a paragraph addressing the outcomes is incorporated, and I think that more information could be given there. In general, I would suggest adding the links to the sources, further developing the outcomes, and maybe working on the structure of the section.
Area Peer Review
[edit]The area section gives an idea of what will be added to the article being improved. Again, adding a lead would help in answering some questions about the section such as why is it important to talk about conflict in the contribution and how do the points on conflicts within TNF, the Women in Transnational Peace Movement and Globalisation relate to each other. As it is, the role of each paragraph is unclear especially because there is no indication of the relationship between them. The three paragraphs could each be further developed so as to give more information supported by reliable sources that can be tracked. After developing them, maybe it would further clarify the contribution to add clear transitions between the three paragraphs. The different views on the topic are not very obvious and an attempt to highlight them would also increase the credibility of the section, adding sources would contribute to that as well. Rassidatou (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review: Catherine Diadhiou
[edit]Area
[edit]First of all, adding this section is a very good idea I think, I never knew there were such big women's organizations doing so much work for women and children. Thank you for this information. I saw in your summary that you are adding sections to the "Transnational Feminism" article; However I could not see headers drawing limits to each of your sections. Writing headers will help guide the reader to know what topic you are introducing to the section of the article. In your first sentence, I believe you were trying to define "Transnational Feminist network (TFN)," You wrote "Transnational corporations" at the beginning of your sentence then went along to write your definition. I don't know if it is meant to be there or not. I think it was a typo. I like that right before your actual edit you explained the content of the edit, which indicates to the reader what topics you are covering. However, because you do not only have 4 paragraphs for your 4 parts, it is also hard to tell where a section ends without thinking twice. Try to create a paragraph relevant for each part, or create subheadings that will separate Globalization, from Aims of TFNs, from examples and from references. Do you have a reference for the first sentence of the Globalization section? I thought NGO's can also be transnational and work globally rather than just on a national level. Be more explicit perhaps. Your second sentence of this section seems to be victimizing women and trying to convince the reader that globalization affects women negatively, maybe try to use facts that show how globalization has worked or not in women in different places, rather than making the claim, by using examples of TFN's work for women globally. In your second and third paragraphs, you mostly site authors, I like that you give examples of what women and children are facing because of Globalization, but this is a claim and it is leaning towards a side to support or not to support. Additionally, it does not really give facts because we do not know the way in which globalization is the cause of these adverse effects. Also, you may want you try to rephrase these quotes in your own words, while trying to give a factual information. The "Aims of TFNs" part explains better the endeavor of these women's networks and gives more facts on what they actually do. You extend by clarifying the activities they do. I like that you have less claim here and these sources seem less biased. The last quote could help you replace some of the claims in the first paragraph with more concrete data because it actually lists the work done. I like that you give examples of these networks, you could expand this by situating there works in their contexts. My one last question is--> are you putting these edits into the sections that you are adding to the article? How are they related to the "Conflicts in TFNs"? Otherwise, nice work!
Sector
[edit]In this article, I cannot identify very well what edits you are making to the article. I have gone back and forth from the article to your sandbox to see the difference between what your wrote and the original version but could not find them. You could try improving the way the author formulates certain assertions about discrimination against women in the workforce in order to make it sound more neutral. Check if the historical role of women in agriculture raised by this article is actually a valid argument, and if yes, is it globally or not depending on culture. Also you can check data that actually shows if men are actually better rewarded and how and why it is the case. The author's claim seems to be the the use of plow by men results in impoverished soils once they leave the farming business and hand it to women, who then suffer the cost of inefficient lands. You can discuss what led to the feminization of agriculture and how the practices of men have led to this outcome. In other words, there should be some restructuring and adding data and facts. Maybe you could change the titles of some subsections of the "background" section (like "discrimination") or just remove those subsection headers and just focus on creating paragraphs relating the history of the feminization of agriculture and is benefits and weaknesses. For the theoretical causes, you might want to also rewrite this title or incorporate it in the background section as a subsection to show how the feminization process came about. And maybe from there you could move the "food insecurity" and "discrimination" subsections as separate parts because they seem to show results and not a history of the events (i.e. the background of the feminization of agriculture) Cathycoeur (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2017 (UTC)