User talk:Evasilako
| This user is a student editor in Rice_University/Gender_and_Politics_(Fall_2021) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Evasilako, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Peer review for "Dalkon Shield"
[edit]Initially, the article seems mostly complete in terms of providing an overview and background information. The article is straightforward and provides a good sequence of events for the topic’s relevance, issues, and resolution. Additionally, it is generally well-sourced and offers some additional context to the topic. Although this article has a fair amount of strengths, it is assumedly lacking some key additional information or context that could be added. Bearing this in mind, it is likely not as well-developed as it seems at first glance. As noted in its talk page, there is a history of harms done to women in Brazil and the Global South, so this may be a key area for further development--especially since the article is very focused on the United States. Overall, the article seems to have a lot of potential for additional contributions that can broaden its scope. Bgreaves18 (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Bschutz11 Dalkon Shield Peer Review
[edit]Overall, this article is thorough and does a good job of outlining the introduction of the device all the way up to its lawsuits. The article reads well, as it follows a chronological order for the most part, so its organization is strong. However, I would suggest separating the content into different sections to reflect different themes in its history rather than having just a “history” section. For example, you could have a section about its “creation” or “introduction”, a section explaining the scientifics of it, and then its problems. This will be especially helpful as the article becomes longer. Personally, I would appreciate a section about how it works beyond the diagram, so people who aren’t as scientifically adept can still comprehend where the Dalkon Shield went wrong. As mentioned by the other peer reviewer and on the talk page, the article is very American-centric, which makes sense because it was an American device, but it had implications elsewhere, so even a subsection in the Aftermath section would be beneficial. The source list is very comprehensive and has a wide variety of types of sources from U.S. government documents to news articles to journal articles, which is a huge strength of the article. One issue I noted is there are areas (namely the Aftermath section) where it appears that citations are needed, such as where the note is, and the last paragraph, which reads as an uncited claim currently. All in all, great work, this is a strong article that can easily be improved! Bschutz11 (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)