Jump to content

Talk:Robbie Davis-Floyd: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Update Global Politics of Reproduction assignment details
Update Global Politics of Reproduction assignment details
Line 1: Line 1:
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/College_of_Wooster/Global_Politics_of_Reproduction_(Spring_2017) | reviewers = [[User:Sirias|Sirias]] }}
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/College_of_Wooster/Global_Politics_of_Reproduction_(Spring_2017) | assignments = [[User:P18|P18]] }}


Talk:Robbie Davis-Floyd
Talk:Robbie Davis-Floyd

Revision as of 03:10, 9 March 2017

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): P18 (article contribs).

Talk:Robbie Davis-Floyd

This is a fantastic start to this article! I've structured mine similarly, so its great to see we're both on the right track. I have a few suggestions: The lead section is truly wonderful, but you might consider only having the first section about Davis-Floyd's authorship with Elizabeth Davis - I'd keep the first sentence and give the rest its own portion for discussion (but more on that later). My only citation concern was a source for her being valedictorian of her high school. Due to the scarcity of information, you could probably combine the Education and Career sections, as they generally tie together. It might also be effective to transfer these bullets into sentence form, which will allow you to also discuss her career outside of only the years she taught. The sentence about her being "a member of the board" would probably work better in the Career/Education sections. I absolutely love your publications section - I think you do a great job of identifying Davis-Floyd's important works. However, you might consider another section below or above which talks about critical reception or influence of her work, and perhaps an overall discussion of her contributions to the field of Anthropology. I'm not sure how in depth you want to go, but elaborating a bit on her major works could also be really effective. Also, don't forget to include any honors or awards her books have won! Like I said, you have such a wonderful framework here and I'm so impressed with what you have already! I can't wait to see the finished article. Dsmith18 (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)dsmith18[reply]