User talk:NoPet/sandbox

JCW Possible Improvements and Notes

- There are NO references. Citations will need to be made.
- The connection between JCW and the Women’s Emergency Network is correct, but not as strong as it is to Bat Shalom. For now, it will remain until a more suitable replacement is located. Topic will then be kept or removed.
- Has its own webpage. This can be a good reference tool, and can lead to more possible tools. (EDIT: Te webpage is down for maintenance. This can be beneficial in finding new information regarding the group's activities. Do not depend on it, since the website might not be renovated in time.
- The Oslo Accords appear to be instrumental to the situation. It might be beneficial to describe the optimism at the time.
- We need to know which other groups the JCW worked with. The Coalition of Women for Peace might be an option, though the connection is questionable.
- The JCW has appealed to foreign governments before. Explore this option, and see if the Boomerang Model plays a role.
- More information on the internal structure of the group might be beneficial. This can include percentage of membership, the denial of the Mizrahi women, and the more prominent members of the group.
- In addition to the above statement, some notable members have been found. Their names are Mariam Ikermawi, and Fadwa Khawaja. Currently, there is little information. These can be useful findings if utilized.
- The membership and collaboration sections have been merged, due to a lack of information on other collaborations. When at least one other group is located, the sections will be separated again.
- If information cannot be found on the specific activities of the JCW, then context can act as a sufficient placeholder. Context can provide examples as to the atmosphere towards advocacy changed over time, to provide additional detail to the historical points.

General Plan for NGO Paper

- Introduction paragraph. This will include the year or founding, where it is based, and briefly explain (1 or 2 sentences), how it works.
- History and founders of the organization. Brief activities of key members before the founding of the organization can be utilized as well.
- Notable activities of the group. These can include collaborations with other groups.
- Criticism of the group.
- Member demographic. - Funding. - Notable members. - Stationed office.

Peer Review

This a good draft and, judging by your section on improvements and notes, it is clear that you have given a lot of thought to the creation of the article. Hopefully, my comments will help you in this process of deciding how to keep improving it.

You have been probably using the words "section" and "JCW" in the headings in order to organize your ideas in the draft. However, I would remove them from the headings to keep coherency with other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, as title of the article I would put "Jerusalem Center for Women" but not an abbreviation of it so the reader has a clear idea of what is he/she going to read about. The abbreviation, in my opinion, would appear in the lead section in the same way you have used it in the history section (The Jerusalem Center for Women (JCW)).

I would add more subheadings as it would allow the reader to easily look for information relevant to him/her and get a quick overview of what is the article going to talk about. It would also make it easier for the reader to fully understand the article if you could add some wiki or external links to some words like feminist, Bat Shalom, second intifada, George W. Bush, Arab-Israeli Conflict, etc.

The lead section is very well written and explains the main points concisely. However, I would add some more information in relation to why it was founded and some reference to the membership section. In addition, I found confusing the statement "The Jerusalem Center for Women is a half of the Jerusalem Link". After reading the history section I could understand what you meant but I would make it clearer in the lead section. In the lead of my article, I have added the name of the organization in its original language (Association marocaine des droits humains (AMDH) (Arabic: الجمعية المغربية لحقوق الإنسان‎), ) maybe you could do the same with yours, but this is only a suggestion.

In the history section, again, I was not sure what the Jerusalem Link was until I had read the whole paragraph. I think it would be clearer for the reader if you start by explaining the summit and how it led to the creation of the Jerusalem Link and its two branches: the Palestinian JCW and the Israeli Bat Shalom. I suggest to change "activities that occurred in Iraq" for "were occurring". Furthermore, I would say something else about the Women’s Emergency Network because it kept me wondering what was it until the advocacy section, or maybe put a link that directs the reader to the advocacy section where it is further explained, which would avoid unnecessary repetition.

The advocacy section could be retitled under "objective and tactics" or "objectives and activities" so that it encompasses all the content of the section. Then, you could also add subheadings one for objective and another for tactics/activities. In this section some questions came to my mind. Would it be "forum" or "forums"?; " the catalyst for the violent response that occurred" when and by whom? (maybe change it for "the catalyst of violent responses/actions"); "enjoyed" or "enjoys"?.

In the membership section, relevant information to the topic is present but I found that some parts would be better placed in other sections in order to avoid mixing information. For example, references to the value of equality and to the platform where to express themselves are mentioned in both the advocacy and the membership section. I would put all this information together in either of the sections to avoid repetition. In addition, the sentence "The general mission statement of the JCW, is to promote all women’s rights" I think needs to be better linked with the previous sentence. Otherwise looks like if it has been misplaced.

I could see throughout the article that you have a very rich vocabulary. However, be careful with punctuation, there are several examples in the article where commas were missing. For instance, "as the year went on, however,..." or " From Grassroots to Decision-Making, for instance,".

Finally, you have done an amazing work in keeping the article neutral and avoiding taking sides. Furthermore, all the information in the article appears to be relevant to the topic.

Some comments on your notes:

1. I would keep the Women's Emergency Network as an example to show some of the organization's activities.
2. I think is a very good idea to include the Oslo Accords and the change of atmosphere towards advocacy over time in the article. I suggest under the history section.
3. Even if the connection with the Coalition of Women for Peace is questionable, you could still write about it while informing the reader about the limitations on that connection.
4. More information on the internal structure of the organization could enrich your article. Maybe you could name a section "Structure and membership" and then use subheadings. Furthermore, I would definitely include, under the membership section, the names of those relevant members you have found and the information even if there is not a big amount of information on them.
5. There is the possibility of keeping the membership and collaboration sections merged (if you like) and use subheadings as a way of differentiating them.

You have extremely good ideas on how to keep developing your article so go for it! Angadea (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review 2: Hi! Really great job so far, very well structured and everything. I realize this is just a draft and you probably know this already, but I'd like to see the outline of the article as it would be live (i.e. the intro paragraph where it should be, the actual name of the headings, etc.). Really great introductory paragraph, straight to the point and exactly what one would expect. Also, whenever you mentioned another potential Wikipedia article (i.e. "Bat Shalom", Jerusalem Link etc.), it would be a great idea to link back to it. I would also suggest more of a transition between the first and second paragraph of the history section. I would also suggest expanding on how the relations between Bat Shalom and JCW were strained because of the second intifada. Really great advocacy section, very informative and clear. Overall, the article is a really great start, and very intriguing. I would also suggest to expand more on what JCW is up to recently (if they are focusing on anything), as well as other potential controversies. Also, maybe split the advocacy section under a few different headings, like one for "objectives", and one for "activities", for example. Other than that, I have nothing to add. I really loved the draft. Great job! Sarahnovack (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ref format

Note that there shouldn't be a space between final punctuation and a ref, between ref and page number, or between refs. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:07, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I've tried to update the rest of the references. NoPet (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)