Human rights Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in Spring 2014. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University of Utah/Gender and Economic Development in the Third World (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Comments[edit]

Untitled[edit]

Looking at the layout of the page I think it;s really good. I would suggest maybe under History, Making that third title "Early Markets" and then either labeling that one United States, or just leaving it be. To have a title named Early United States Markets with no other examples of early programs, etc. As we spoke about in class, the only other thing I would think to add would be more in the legal section. I think maybe separate out the hypothetical/theoretical problems, outlining them, etc - and then bringing in some real examples or extrapolating further in sub sections. You could have a few examples from different regions, or probably better that all examine different legal aspects that surface. I think it's good, but if you had to beef up a section, I think that would be interesting to develop. Other than that I think it looks really great and it was really fun to see the progression of it since your first draft!

U0552803 (talk) 21:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I think the article page looks really good, clear subtitles, proper in-text citations, and blue links. The recommendations I could make mainly focus on the "Legal Issues" section. First, in terms of blue links, maybe there lack some brackets "[...]" in the second sentence of legal section. (the phrase "medical tourism" and "reproductive tourism") Second, for the same sentence, I'm not sure if it is because of my misunderstanding; from my viewpoint, it seems that medical tourism and reproductive tourism mentioned in the second sentence do not matter the following content too much in this section. Instead, it looks like the content of the "Clinics" section. Therefore, my recommendation here might be taking off the second sentence. Thirdly, also in this section, maybe add more examples of legal issues? I think what children face is not only legal issues like the India and Japan example, but also psychological problems. I'm not sure if there are any available references here. The rest parts of the article looks really good. Good job! ^o^ Yangtana Li (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commets[edit]

I think the page is looking great so far. I was wondering if you had a focus on any country because you start off by talking about where is was illegal in America but I'm also interested in where it is still illegal. You just need another set of brackets on artificial insemination under modernization and reproductive issues/ medical issues under legal issues. After you mention Mohanty I would state why she's important and why the opinion of this person matters. You have a line about wealthy vs. the poor that seemed a bit bias but that could have been how I read it as well. Maybe find something to support that or just reword it. In the Exploitation section you don't have any references so if you had any that would be great, just because right now it seems more opinion. I know that's hard just because it is an important section so i wouldn't worry about it to much. But besides that the article is great. I think it has a ton of information and I enjoyed reading the history of what happened beforehand. Keep up the good work. Tkd9422 (talk)Tkd9422 — Preceding undated comment added 22:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just fixed the repetition of references by naming them.Swaugaman (talk) 08:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments[edit]

Thank you for the feedback. I will upload my revised version this afternoon. I have expanded and revised the legal section and included a list of where surrogacy is legal and illegal. India is the dominant market for commercial surrogacy, and I would have like to expand information about other countries, but at this point in my research most of what I have found isn't relevant to this encyclopedia format. I have also taken your advice and changed the title to early markets and explained why Mohanty's option matters, and also fixed my ... problems. My page was reviewed by a wikipedia editor and I have fixed my weasel word problem. I agree I need to change the exploitation section, I am still currently working on this, and will have a better structure for this when my completed version is uploaded. Thank you for taking the time to review my page. Miss Smithington (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2018 and 7 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kenadilenderman.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback[edit]

This article is very strong (informative and reads well). You should heed the tags (any remaining issues) at the top of the article. In addition, your paragraphs need to be broken up, they are too long. The lead paragraph is too long as well. Perhaps you can incorporate the "Viewing..." sentence in the text below. Instead of "Modernization" I'd call that section "New reproductive technologies" and start with "In late 20th and early 21st century..." and phrase a general sentence on the possibilities of new reproductive technologies (such as the last sentence on Artificial insemination--move up). Once it is technologically possible, then the market emerges. Some sections need better referencing. For example, Ethics, Transnational Surrogacy each has one citation and each contains several sentences that beg for scholarly support!--e.g. the citizenship of the child sentence at the end, the first two sentences in the Ethics section. You need to rework the Mohanty argument for clarity. The sentences in that paragraph until the Mohanty citation are not coherent. In notice a reference syntax problem "Spar" in the "Early markets" section. You are on track, keep going!BerikG (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics[edit]

"An ethical argument against womb commodification is that it allows the rich to take advantage of the willingness of poor women to perform any job so long as they are able to earn a wage.[7] A woman may choose to commodify her womb for money because she is faced with no other profitable options for employment."

Is that argument really against the commodification?