Talk:National Organization for Women

From Citizendium
Revision as of 13:30, 7 October 2009 by imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (→‎First (instructor) evaluation comments)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is a stub and thus not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Definition [?]
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Please add a brief definition or description.
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Politics and Eduzendium [Please add or review categories]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English
To do.


Metadata here


First (instructor) evaluation comments

Hi James,

Here are some suggestions for further improvements to your encyclopedia entry draft. I'll stick to the sections you've already been developing, but remember that you still need to fill in the others as well as the required subpages.

  • Above all, it's important that you present information about NOW in your own words rather than lifting directly (or even paraphrasing closely) from the organization's website. For example, your intro section should not be as close as it currently is to this.
  • The "History" section seems to be similarly derived too directly from the NOW website's history page, though by jumping so abruptly into the Civil Rights Act, it doesn't provide readers with enough historical context about feminism in the United States and doesn't seem to discuss how the politics of civil rights actually led to NOW's founding. It would probably be a good idea to scrap what you have there and start over by explaining in your own words how NOW came about and how it's developed since the mid-1960s.
  • The first paragraph of the "Current objectives and activities" section should be in paragraph form rather than a list. Once again, your discussion of the organization's work should be in your own words, not in those of NOW's website.

Shamira Gelbman 18:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Second (peer) evaluation comments