User talk:JessWeiss/sandbox

User:JessWeiss, I took a look at your article. Due to the critique you received before, I went through your article and tried to remove any "biased" language I saw in the article. Hopefully that will give your article a more NPOV. There were a few places where information seemed to be repetitive (e.g., you mention Shoretz's battle with cancer in two sections and the genetic predisposition for cancer in three sections). I recommend taking a look at this information and seeing if there is a way to restructure your article so it isn't repetitive. Finally, are you sure you should have the mission statement in the article? That could contribute to your article appearing promotional. -Bcstanley1 (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reagle -- when you are able to, can you please let me know if my article is ready for the main space? There are no images available on Wikimedia Commons related to Sharsheret, but I am trying to locate an original picture to upload. Thank you for your help! JessWeiss (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review

JessWeiss, I've edited to reorg (to remove redundancy) and cleanup; two citations are required, and I have a question about the following:

"As stated on Sharsheret's website", if this were true, you do not cite it the website. That said, citing external reputable sources is preferred.

Once you address these, I think you should check in with Shalor (Wiki Ed) about trying mainspace again. -Reagle (talk) 14:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits Reagle -- I have made those changes, please let me know if there's anything else that should be added! Shalor (Wiki Ed), can you please let me know if I am ready to try the mainspace again?

JessWeiss, yes, I think it's ready for another attempt -- you can continue to work on MichelleBir.'s suggestions, before or after. Hopefully Shalor (Wiki Ed) can give her advice soon. -Reagle (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MichelleBir.: would you mind reviewing my article? I would really benefit from any additional feedback!

Hi User:JessWeiss! I have reviewed your article and made some changes/have a few suggestions that I think could strengthen your article even more! See below:

Does “Sharsheret” need to be in bold?
I think the intro is very strong
I took out some of the transition words (such as “moreover” since this isn’t really an essay)
I added quotation marks to Sharsheret’s mission statement - do you need to add a credit to the quote? (for ex: “…over 250 educational programs annually worldwide”. -Sharsheret Executive Board) - on that same note there is a citation needed on there
I don’t think the fact that Sharsheret hosting webinars and meetings needs to be in the “Mission” section, maybe in the intro since it’s just a quick piece of info?
I added a link to the Rochelle Lee Shoretz Wikipedia page
“She was also a mother of two and a leader in the Jewish community” could sound a little biased - maybe say something she did to exemplify her leadership? Just a thought!
Maybe take out the quote about Shoretz saying “I believe true support needs to be tailored” and change it to something such as “Shoretz advocated for individualized support of those with breast cancer.” On first glance, that seems less biased to me…
I reworked the Joshua Venture phrasing
I took out “in particular” after you mention AEPhi because that could be where it seems like a conflict of interest
Changed some of the wording in the Pink Day description for clarity
I added a link for the CDC
Do you have a citation for the CDC award
I think it seems more biased because you have a lot of quotes. Maybe change some quotes to more general statements
Overall though, it’s good I think you have a good amount of information and touch on the relevant aspects of the organization :)

-MichelleBir. (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Hi! Sorry for running late with this! Here are my notes to accompany the others:

The claim "given that Ashkenazi Jews are at higher risk of developing breast cancer due to their genetic makeup" needs an academic or scholarly source to back this up. The reason for this is that it's a medical claim. Something like this page by the CDC should be usable, as they're a reliable source and it's also not a primary source like a study finding.

Of note is that this also states that they "have a higher risk for a BRCA gene mutation", which isn't exactly the same thing as saying that they're at a higher risk of developing breast cancer per se - it's a more general statement, as this also puts them at risk of ovarian cancer. I've changed this in the article.

I've made some other tweaks, mostly for tone and style. One thing to be careful of is that you don't rely too heavily on quotes - ideally this should be rephrased in your own words. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]