I enjoyed reading your section and the improvement's you made on Paris is Burning. Kudo's to you on taking this section on! I do have a few comments that may help you continue editing your article. 1. I thought you did a good job of incorporating our readings and discussions into the article. I also never felt that they were too biased, as you spent most of the time citing the author's perspectives and provided some counter points. 2. I would think about the reading level you are currently writing at. This is very difficult when explaining someone like Butler, but the reading level is at a 6. For example, there is a statement "the Author describes interpellation as the subjection or formation of individuals by another's acknowledgment". In this definition, I think some people would still struggle to understand what the "subjection" is or what you mean by "formation of individuals". It is so difficult to write at a lower level but I think you are well equipped to handle it. 3. There was one section that didn't seem to fit the flow of the article "In her book, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", Judith Butler responds to this assertion stating: The problem with the analysis of drag as only misogyny is, of course, that it figures male-to-female transsexuality, cross-dressing, and drag as male homosexual activities- which they are not always- and it further diagnosis male homosexuality as rooted in misogyny.[7]" I felt that it was not connected to what was previously said or where the article was going. I feel that you might have had an idea of how it fit, it might just need some transitions. I would also think about defining the word misogyny or connecting it to the article on it. Keep up the excellent work and best of luck! CassLong ( talk) 16:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nicole, thank you so much for your feedback it was really helpful. I will definitely try to attempt to explain "subjection" and the "formation of individuals" in a more accessible way for readers. In regards to your comment on Judith Butler's quote, it was intended to be a response to bell hooks claim that drag is misogynistic, but I will try to find a way to make it flow better. Thank you again. Chloe asmith ( talk) 22:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Overall, I thought this article was great. You hit all the key points of editing the lead section to be clear, concise, and reflective. Additionally, this section has a clear and organized structure. There is a balanced coverage within each of the section's length; and, the sources seem reliable and unbiased. Similar to Nichole's suggestions, I would recommend using less-elevated language for some of the complex theories and jargon. Additionally, I could be incorrect, but are block texts allowed on Wikipedia? I am not entirely sure, but maybe verify that, if you also do not know.
Khaboninajoy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback Khabo! I will definitely go through and search for potentially biased or argumentative language. In addition, I will double check on the blocked quotes question but I think it is permitted as long as its cited.
Chloe asmith (
talk)
22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of good things happening in these paragraphs; the information is organized well, the writing feels pretty neutral, for the most part it flows well. There are some spots that could be improved by changing the wording and grammar, like here when you introduce your other two authors: "Authors such as Judith Butler, bell hooks, and Phillip Harper have all pointed towards the Queens desire to perform and present “realness”[6]." You've already introduced bell hooks in the previous sentence, so instead you could say something like "Other authors such as Judith Butler and Phillip Harper have also pointed towards..." so that it isn't redundant. I think you did a good job of both introducing the concept of "realness" and briefly explaining it; something else that could add to that would be if you found something that related it to the idea of passing. This line here, "The goal amongst the contestants is to perfect societies normative gender roles, while simultaneously subverting them," feels very academic/essayish to me. Maybe something like "A main goal amongst the contestants is to perform conventional gender roles while at the same time trying to challenge them." That's not perfect, but just something to make it feel more accessible. "As the film director, Livingston has the power to wield the camera and manipulate the viewers gaze, while simultaneously producing a subject through their gender expression" - This last sentence feels a little essay-ish to me too; "simultaneously producing a subject through their gender expression" reads very much like an essay or an argument to me.
Here are some more words that could be linked to wiki pages: femininity, gender expression, gender roles, misogynistic (linked to misogyny) Also: after you link bell hooks the first time you don't need to link her again, and I would link Butler's name the first time you introduce her and leave it at that. Overall I think you did a really nice job, all of these are minor edits, the information and sources are solid and it flows like a typical Wikipedia article. At815913 ( talk) 23:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Anna thank you so much for your feedback it was extremely helpful since you laid out potential solutions to the problems you found. I will definitely be changing the ways I introduced by sources/authors, as well as altering the sentence on subversion. I will note an author when talking about Livingston's power to manipulate the viewers gaze, but Im not sure how I can describe the formation of a subject at a lower level. I will try my best to explain it better and sound less essay-ish. Also, thank you for the linked words suggestion! I knew there was more I could link but I think I got overwhelmed by it. Thank you again. Chloe asmith ( talk) 22:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I enjoyed reading your section and the improvement's you made on Paris is Burning. Kudo's to you on taking this section on! I do have a few comments that may help you continue editing your article. 1. I thought you did a good job of incorporating our readings and discussions into the article. I also never felt that they were too biased, as you spent most of the time citing the author's perspectives and provided some counter points. 2. I would think about the reading level you are currently writing at. This is very difficult when explaining someone like Butler, but the reading level is at a 6. For example, there is a statement "the Author describes interpellation as the subjection or formation of individuals by another's acknowledgment". In this definition, I think some people would still struggle to understand what the "subjection" is or what you mean by "formation of individuals". It is so difficult to write at a lower level but I think you are well equipped to handle it. 3. There was one section that didn't seem to fit the flow of the article "In her book, Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", Judith Butler responds to this assertion stating: The problem with the analysis of drag as only misogyny is, of course, that it figures male-to-female transsexuality, cross-dressing, and drag as male homosexual activities- which they are not always- and it further diagnosis male homosexuality as rooted in misogyny.[7]" I felt that it was not connected to what was previously said or where the article was going. I feel that you might have had an idea of how it fit, it might just need some transitions. I would also think about defining the word misogyny or connecting it to the article on it. Keep up the excellent work and best of luck! CassLong ( talk) 16:48, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Nicole, thank you so much for your feedback it was really helpful. I will definitely try to attempt to explain "subjection" and the "formation of individuals" in a more accessible way for readers. In regards to your comment on Judith Butler's quote, it was intended to be a response to bell hooks claim that drag is misogynistic, but I will try to find a way to make it flow better. Thank you again. Chloe asmith ( talk) 22:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Overall, I thought this article was great. You hit all the key points of editing the lead section to be clear, concise, and reflective. Additionally, this section has a clear and organized structure. There is a balanced coverage within each of the section's length; and, the sources seem reliable and unbiased. Similar to Nichole's suggestions, I would recommend using less-elevated language for some of the complex theories and jargon. Additionally, I could be incorrect, but are block texts allowed on Wikipedia? I am not entirely sure, but maybe verify that, if you also do not know.
Khaboninajoy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback Khabo! I will definitely go through and search for potentially biased or argumentative language. In addition, I will double check on the blocked quotes question but I think it is permitted as long as its cited.
Chloe asmith (
talk)
22:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of good things happening in these paragraphs; the information is organized well, the writing feels pretty neutral, for the most part it flows well. There are some spots that could be improved by changing the wording and grammar, like here when you introduce your other two authors: "Authors such as Judith Butler, bell hooks, and Phillip Harper have all pointed towards the Queens desire to perform and present “realness”[6]." You've already introduced bell hooks in the previous sentence, so instead you could say something like "Other authors such as Judith Butler and Phillip Harper have also pointed towards..." so that it isn't redundant. I think you did a good job of both introducing the concept of "realness" and briefly explaining it; something else that could add to that would be if you found something that related it to the idea of passing. This line here, "The goal amongst the contestants is to perfect societies normative gender roles, while simultaneously subverting them," feels very academic/essayish to me. Maybe something like "A main goal amongst the contestants is to perform conventional gender roles while at the same time trying to challenge them." That's not perfect, but just something to make it feel more accessible. "As the film director, Livingston has the power to wield the camera and manipulate the viewers gaze, while simultaneously producing a subject through their gender expression" - This last sentence feels a little essay-ish to me too; "simultaneously producing a subject through their gender expression" reads very much like an essay or an argument to me.
Here are some more words that could be linked to wiki pages: femininity, gender expression, gender roles, misogynistic (linked to misogyny) Also: after you link bell hooks the first time you don't need to link her again, and I would link Butler's name the first time you introduce her and leave it at that. Overall I think you did a really nice job, all of these are minor edits, the information and sources are solid and it flows like a typical Wikipedia article. At815913 ( talk) 23:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Anna thank you so much for your feedback it was extremely helpful since you laid out potential solutions to the problems you found. I will definitely be changing the ways I introduced by sources/authors, as well as altering the sentence on subversion. I will note an author when talking about Livingston's power to manipulate the viewers gaze, but Im not sure how I can describe the formation of a subject at a lower level. I will try my best to explain it better and sound less essay-ish. Also, thank you for the linked words suggestion! I knew there was more I could link but I think I got overwhelmed by it. Thank you again. Chloe asmith ( talk) 22:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)