Ivy&Fern2003

Welcome!

Hello, Ivy&Fern2003, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Brianda 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
Editing Wikipedia, a guide for student editors Choosing an article to edit Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.

Please complete the assigned training modules. --Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

Lead: You have a political recruitment model description underneath the lead. I think this would much better fit under the lead section as it explains what the model does and why people are stuck in the stage they are. This would make the lead stronger as it explains the model in a way that readers can understand before getting into more of the article. Adding the first paragraph (the model description) would help explain the major sections of the coming article.

Content: The content is relevant. However, in the barriers to becoming an elected official section. It feels like there is a lot of information but no organization or reason behind the information there. It is all useful but I think it could be better organized.

Tone and Balance: The article is as neutral as it can be considering the majority of people who focus on women in the political recruitment model are feminist scholars. You do a great job at explaining why women drop out of the model earlier than men. You’ve done a great job at simply being informational rather than being persuasive It is clear in your writing that you are reporting information rather than trying to force someone to think one way or another.

Sources and References: You do a great job at citing all your sources within the article! The sources are exclusively peer reviewed sources which is extremely for a topic such as the political recruitment model which is theoretical in nature. Many of the articles are written by women, the marginalized group.

Organization: The barriers to becoming an elected official section is difficult to read and understand from an outsider perspective.

Images: If you can add the photo of the model, I think that it would be beneficial. Right now, there is no visual aid for visual learners to get the gist of the model.

Sefinkel (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

Great draft! I think you cover the most important parts of the political recruitment model, while also keeping the article concise and clear. I also appreciate your broad range of sources! I think the lead could include a more thorough explanation of the model so people could have a sense of what it is before they move onto the body. Like I said in the feedback document, I think some of the content from the Political Recruitment Model Description section could be moved to the lead. I think your organization makes sense (this is a hard topic to break into sections), but I think you could also consider splitting up the sections based on each stage of the model. In that section you could define the stage, talk about barriers for women, how that effects women’s likelihood of moving to the next stage, and the implications of the disparity between men/women in that stage. I know this might be a little confusing because women drop off between stages, so that might be difficult to explain. If you end up keeping the current organization, I think you could move the content you have under “Barriers to Becoming an Elected Official” under political ambition, and then spend some time discussing voter bias and political party gatekeepers under the barriers section. You mentioned that you are concerned of straying away from the topic when you discuss supply, but I don’t think that’s an issue. I think all the info you have on supply is necessary, and I would just suggest adding a bit more on demand.  I agree that spending too much time on these topics might distract from the topic, but I do think they are necessary to explain because they are part of the model! Gpol643 (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC) 128.252.48.38 (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

link to full peer review: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HMPilL0EyJY4v8b94BxrBZjz6nkyy_up/view?usp=sharing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.48.38 (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Political recruitment model moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Political recruitment model, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Political recruitment model has been accepted

Political recruitment model, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)