User talk:Katia.Henrys
| This user is a student editor in CUNY_Graduate_Center/Feminist_Text_and_Theories_Feminist_Publishing_(Fall_2018) . |
|
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Katia.Henrys, 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) 15:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Hi! What types of sourcing are you looking at? In general academic and scholarly databases are best, since they're almost always going to have usable sourcing. It also depends on how you're going to use the sourcing, as we can only summarize what has already been stated in the source material as opposed to creating new theories and research. Let me know on my talk page what sourcing you're lookign at. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi! I reverted your largest edit to the article on women's rights in Haiti. This needs a bit of work - I'll go into some notes below:
- This needs to be checked for grammar and spelling errors. Also, be careful when adding content as you want to make sure that it fit Wikipedia's writing style and that it doesn't mess up the article's formatting.
- On the topic of writing style, this was written along the lines of "In XXXX, this happened. In XXXX this happened...." This is kind of clunky and also makes it harder to show context per se. Also, I'd avoid writing sentences like this:
- Women have been involved in social movements in Haiti since the battle for independence even if History does not recall their names.'
- This can be seen as editorializing and can also kind of come across as subjective since the section does have several women's names present. I'd leave this out.
- Make sure that any claims or statements are attributed to the person or organization making them. For example, it you say "it's reported that..." then the sentence should state who is reporting this information.
This needs a re-write - more just a bit of shuffling around. I'll see if I can give you an example of how to do this on your sandbox. On a side note, the sourcing looks good! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- I did a bit of a re-write and I noticed a few more things. First off, there are some things that are mentioned but seem a little superfluous since it isn't really explained how they relate to the topic of women's rights in Haiti. For example, you included mention of a conference but didn't state exactly how this pertained to Haiti, just that it was held. Did it focus on Haiti? Was it held in Haiti? This is really important to include since otherwise it just seems like a random observance.
- To a degree the same thing goes for the content about Aristide. You need to clarify how he's important to women's rights. It looks like he probably championed women's rights but this isn't clear in the section because you didn't include any information about this. Also keep in mind that this section is meant to be a brief overview of the history of the women's rights movement and as such, anything that is included must be justified somehow by way of showing where this specific element was crucial to the ongoing development of women's rights.
- To that end, the information about the earthquake is a little vague as well. It says that several major people in the women's rights movement died but doesn't show how their deaths impacted the movement. Were there no others to take their place? Did the deaths delay any major laws or actions that these people were working towards? This just wasn't clear.
- Now the rest of the information following this felt too much like a personal reflection since there are several claims and statements made, some of which are pretty contentious. These aren't attributed to the sources (ie, According to This Person...) and as such, come across as it being you (and Wikipedia) that is the one making these claims, like you came up with them on your own, which is seen as original research, which shouldn't be in the article. All major claims and statements must be attributed. You also need to show how these impacted women's rights in Haiti. You claim that the depictions of Haiti by international media is dehumanizing and works against attempts to address structural causes of violence, but you don't really explain how this occurs or how it's relevant to women's rights in specific. I'm not saying that media can't have an impact, but this seems to be a fairly large leap from one thing to another. It's also unattributed, which is also an issue.
- Remember - women's rights are more than just rape and other forms of violence against women. It's also about things like voting, jobs, relationships and divorce, equal pay, schooling, and other topics. Violence against women is a major focus, but it's not the only one and you put a very heavy focus on this throughout your contribution.
- I heavily recommend that you look at how these sections are written and formatted in articles such as Women's rights in Saudi Arabia, Women's_rights_in_Iran#History, and especially Women's rights in Brazil. The article on Brazil is a Featured Article, which means that it's seen as one of the best on Wikipedia. This can give you a good idea as far as what should be added and how it can be attributed and given context. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)