Skiv99!

Skiv99!, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Skiv99!! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Skiv99!, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.

Please complete the assigned training modules. --KjessJKT (talk) 13:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.

Please complete the assigned training modules. --KjessJKT (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review

Rural diversity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rural_diversity

Sexuality Section

It is estimated that fifteen to twenty percent of LGBTQ+ people in the United States live in rural areas.[1] Rural areas also have about the same percentage of LGBTQ residents as do urban areas, though many are not open about their identity due to threat of discrimination and violence. They are more likely than their urban peers to be subject to discrimination and social exclusion.[1] Rural LGBTQ people are often overlooked by the larger LGBTQ community and by researchers, which both tend to be centered in and around cities. This results in a lack of resources for rural LGBTQ+ populations.

Revised: About fifteen to twenty percent of LGBQT+ people in the united States live in rural and urban area. However, members of rural areas are less likely to be open about their sexuality due to the discrimination and violent threats they may face. The lack of people who openly identify as LGBQT+ leads to the lack of resources for them throughout the rural communities.

Reason for Change: I felt the sentences could be made more concise rather than have a lengthy and repetitive text.

I also decided to add a source for the information provided about sexuality in rural communities

Emily K. Dakin, Kelly A. Williams & Maureen A. MacNamara (2020) Social Support and Social Networks among LGBT Older Adults in Rural Southern Appalachia, Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 63:8, 768-789, DOI: 10.1080/01634372.2020.1774028

Common Conceptions Section

"Though rural areas are diversifying rapidly in terms of race, and as of 2006, 19% of rural residents in the United States were from racial or ethnic minorities, depictions of rural areas rarely feature much racial diversity at all."

Reader never put a source, have to verify and find source for information.

Peer Review - Sayed

First of all, I believe that the modifications that were made are necessary. The difference in using conciseness is clear between the old and revised version. This sentence, "However, members of rural areas are less likely to be open about their sexuality due to the discrimination and violent threats they may face", replaced multiple sentences while maintaining their meaning. Excellent. Also, the source choice is good based on its relevance and credibility. It was also presented in appropriate conventions.

There is room for improvement. Expanding such modifications to the entire article would impact it positively. Moreover, presenting a brief structure/process/methodology before modifying the article would put some sort of strategy for improving the article, leading to a more objective editing process.

Overall, the article would improve significantly if similar modifications are proposed, but only on a more organized, rather than spontaneous, manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayed120989 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Sayed120989: Sayed, Dr. Sarraf here. I agree that Brianna's rewrite improves the article by making it more concise. However, I am not sure what you mean in this sentence: "Moreover, presenting a brief structure/process/methodology before modifying the article would put some sort of strategy for improving the article, leading to a more objective editing process." Can you clarify so that Brianna understands what action you'd like her to take? KjessJKT (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Skiv99!: Hi Brianna, Dr. Sarraf here. First, I want to commend your clear explanation on your talk page of the proposed changes. It's effective that you show other users the original text, the revised text, and the justification for the change. You might add "Original Text: " before each original text excerpt to further clarify for your reviewers.

Does one of your sources support this claim, Brianna? "However, members of rural areas are less likely to be open about their sexuality due to the discrimination and violent threats they may face." I definitely think the excerpt would be stronger if there was a citation to support that claim. Perhaps you can clarify where you plan to place Emily Dakin et al's article. KjessJKT (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)