User talk:Lenapd/sandbox

Lena's Response to Peer Reviews

Thank you all for your input, it was all truly insightful and I feel confident that moving forward I will be able to craft an even stronger article. I went ahead and addressed the grammatical error in the first sentence pointed out by Braelynn. I will also be going back to ensure that each sentence has a situation in the article where appropriate. I will also be leaving a note in the Talk section of the article I am working for further input as to whether or not I should remove the sentence mentioning Swaziland, Lesotho, and Botswana’s higher rates of HIV/AIDS infection as it does not add to the discussion on South Africa, as Amber has pointed out. Also per the suggestion of my peers here I have removed the title of the World Health Organization article since the title is available through the citation in the references section. In regards to the same study it was suggested that I include a percentage rather than use the phrase “the majority of women”. But I do not know what percentage to include. After rereading the sentence I think the issue with this sentence is that I phrased it in such a way that I was using the study to draw instead of discussing what information from the article in an unbiased and purely informative tone. I will be going back and reworking this section more and perhaps incorporating information from different sources, so as to address Keanu’s critique that I may be relying too heavily on information from this single source.

Thank you all for your time and your insight.

Lenapd (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lena's Peer Review

I think your article was well formatted, informative and the information was presented clearly. Specifically, your information on the topic of HIV/AIDS was well worded and the sources were reputable. However, I would suggest you could add more information on the topic of reproductive rights. I think you covered reproductive health very well but there was only a sentence or two on reproductive rights. I think this would improve your article because it is one of the topics in the subject. Also, I did notice a grammar error in the first sentence(Women's should be woman's). Overall, reviewing your article was very informative to me and I liked the flow of your information.

Peer Review

What's Good:

Lead sentence sounds good and properly cited
Nice inclusion of some studies made and results from those studies
Focused content
Sources look reliable
Fairly neutral tone

Things to Improve/Consider:

Every sentence should be cited, according to instructor.
Maybe take out the sentence mentioning Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana. I think it's enough to know that South Africa is the 4th country in global ranking for rate of infection. Just keep it specific to South Africa.
In the 4th paragraph that starts with "In an article...entitled "Unrecognized...", I think you can take out the title of the article, but leave in "In an article from the World Health Organization" - The article will be cited anyways, so I don't think there's a need to add in the title within your content.
From the same section as above bullet point, if there's a percentage or some kind of statistic within the source, add it in rather than saying "the majority."
Just keep adding in information/developing your paragraphs/sections
Have any more laws been instituted in regards to your topic since the start of SDGs?

XAmberA (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keanu's Peer Review

I think you have a lot of good sources and information put down currently. I think to make this article better you should focus a bit less on the World Health Organization segment. The information provided from it is very good but it makes it seem like they are writing this article and not you. Maybe just explain what they said and cite it. Also, I think there needs to be a citation for each sentence you make if it comes from a source. Other than that, this is a pretty solid draft in my opinion. Fall319 (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]