User talk:Madisonce02
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Washington/Online_Communities_(Fall_2024) . |
Intro
[edit]Hi @Madisonce02! My name is Abby Kensinger, and I am a fourth year Communication major. I am so excited to take this class with you this quarter! Abbykensinger (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Madisonce02, 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) 16:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Article Selection
[edit]We talked in class about your selection. I think its a good one! Roller steaks (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Peer Review Article
[edit]Im writing to inform you that your selected article, I.Am.Gia, was also selected by two of your peers before you got there. Unfortunately, you will have to select a new article. Roller steaks (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Peer Review Article
[edit]Im writing to inform you that your selected article, Mount Baker National Recreation Area, was also selected by two of your peers before you got there. Unfortunately, you will have to select a new article. Roller steaks (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback on your article
[edit]Sorry for the delay. I just took a pass on your article Terrorism Act, 1967. First off, I had a few comments about the lead:
- The sentence: "It was active until all except section 7 was repealed under the Internal Security and Intimidation Amendment Act 138 of 1991." Do you just mean that all of it, except for section 7, was repeated in 1991? Maybe just reword?
- This may sound weird when talking about an article on something so historically horrible but I think you would benefit to work toward a more consistent neutral tone in the second paragraph of the lead.
- The first sentence or two seems to take the goal of the law for granted which I think gives it more credit than it it deserves. Was the law actually responding to terrorism? Or was it simply using the term and concept of terrorism to crack down on a range of apartheid groups? I would say that it was "put in place to respond to violent resistant by (list specific groups) whose actions the apartheid regime opposed. The act classified these actions as terrorism."
- I guess the sentence "At the time, the Apartheid government had numerous racist and oppressive laws in place," probably doesn't need stating. I think readers of this article will know this.
- The second part "they used anti-terrorism laws to target those who opposed the regime" is great but can provide examples? Are there specific famous people who were charged under the act?
- "They were able to violate human rights of individuals suspected of being freedom fighters, as well as their family members through unjust arrests." doesn't feel like it's written in encyclopedic tone to me. "Suspected of being freedom fighters" and "unjust arrests" seems like it's taking a side. Obviously, that side is the side of justice (and, history!) but I would rephrase it so that it's clearly a statement of facts. For example, replace "of being freedom fighters" with specific references to the things people were suspected of, "engaging in armed resistance against the state" or "suspected of working with certain (specific organizations)" or something like that. Whatever your references support. Similarly, maybe replace "through unjust acts" with either a description of what the specific acts were or a (cited) reference to historians that have called those acts unjust. It's OK to say "historians consider many of the arrests under the act to be violations of human rights" if you've got a reference to support it. This sounds much stronger than just saying it's unjust, which sounds like an opinion. If it's a widely held opinion, that's fine, but cite a reference to support that.
I had few comments about the new "Sections of the Act" action:
- This current reads like a list. That's probably OK but maybe have a paragraph that explains some basic background on the structure of the act. How many sections were there?
- Assuming that my first point is correct, maybe update the point about Section 7 to make it clear that it's still on the books.
- How many sections are there? It's a little strange that you don't mention #1 and that 4 and 5 are combined but none of the others are.
- Maybe retitle this section so that it's something like "Structure"?
That's it for now! —mako๛ 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)