User talk:Elinafelt/sandbox

Eleanor! Overall, I would say this is a very well written draft. The introduction paragraph is especially strong. I think that you did a great job at citing your sources. There is not a time where I felt your facts were unreasonable because everything is attached to a source. My suggestion is that perhaps you could provide more background about the time period in the History section. I think a quick explanation on why there was an increased interest in women in the 90’s could be helpful in providing context. I also think it could not hurt to include more quotes in the criticism section. I had a quick look at your outline and I like that you are going to include a timeline in your final draft. That will definitely help to connect the dots and hopefully provide some context, like I mentioned before. Nice first draft! -Sara FikseThesaramarie (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Review The lead is very strong and reflects the Girl Studies’ most important information. Additionally, it does a very good job of explaining and defining Girl Studies. I don’t think there is anything missing, nor anything redundant about the information contained in the lead. The sections are well organized, having two paragraphs in the “History” section and one shorter paragraph in the “Criticisms” section, reflecting that the history and background of Girl Studies is (obviously) more important than the criticisms section. Also, the information contained in the article comes from reliable sources, such as books and academic journals. There are three sources, representing several viewpoints. I really liked how you include a section describing the criticisms there are about Girl Studies. I think this is a great way to show all sides of the debate about this area of study. However, in this section, you only give critiques from within the Girl Studies field, there are no critiques from people opposing the field of study itself. For example, you bring up the point that non-white and non-Western girls are vastly understudied within the field, but you don’t offer any views from opponents of the field overall. Maybe you could find a reliable source from opponents of the field and give their critiques. -- Waverly Hart