User talk:Skyedsf
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Maryland/Advanced_Historical-Critical_Methods_in_Communication_(Spring_2018) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Skyedsf, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
I think this is where we're supposed to do peer review but I'm not totally sure
[edit]Hey! A few thoughts on the peer review stuff:
1. It might be more "wikipedia"-style writing for you to start your paragraphs with a simple sentence (syntax with no clauses) structure. The sentence opening your second paragraphs was a little hard to follow.
2. There's a few sentences that to my ear sounds less neutral than wikipedia might like. Instead of
"However, a common misconception is that this framework was meant to replace "reproductive rights" or "reproductive health" structures. Rather, reproductive justice as both a term and concept was meant to centralize black women's voices and lives."
You might try something like:
"One common misconception pointed to by adherents of this approach is that the term "reproductive justice" is not meant to simply replace "reproductive rights" or "reproductive health" as operative terms within a pro-choice framework. Rather, advocates such as [blankety blank person] argue that reproductive justice is meant to serve as a broader concept that grants more attention to (amongst other things) black women's voices and lives."
Generally, I think wikipedia operates in more of a journalistic mode of speech than anything else. Since the topic you're writing about is explicitly ideological, it might help to try to adopt a more explicitly journalistic sytle of writing in order to create the appearance of critical detachment. (Or maybe I'm totally off base).
3. It might help to start the second paragraph with a "origins of the movement" sentence or two pointing to both the "Trust Women" rhetoric and also the book published in 2004.
4. Since the rhetorical perspective is a bit tricky, perhaps you could reframe the entire entry around the *phrase* "reproductive justice" instead of the ideology, since ideologies are by definition unwieldy. The entry on "Si Se Puede" might be a helpful model to follow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%AD_se_puede