Talk:Women In Agriculture In India - Agriculture In A Sentence

Moving your sandbox

Hi, Alev! Looks like a great start to this new article; are you planning to move it from your sandbox into the article namespace? If you need help doing so, please let me know! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi Alev! This is a very thorough and well-written article. I would recommend including something about the women (and possibly "gender inequality") faced by women in agriculture in India in the very first paragraph to highlight the issue. For instance, you have this sentence at the end of one of your paragraphs: "Despite their dominance of the labor force women in India still face extreme disadvantage in terms of pay, land rights, and representation in local farmers organizations. Furthermore their lack of empowerment often results in externalities such as lower educational attainment for their children and poor familial health." Second, I suggest re-organizing the structure to include the inputs into inequality such as the "Access to land and resources" section and then the outcomes for women, then responses from them, such as the "Cooperatives" section. I like that you included that section as an important response from women and think we should discuss how to tie it to my artic le, on "Women in cooperatives". Furthermore, I think organizing the structure into some larger headings lumping together the headings you have would help the guide the reader through the importance of each section and why you included it. Emmyloumanwill (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Feedback

This article is well-written and informative and covers a number of important issues that pertain to the topic. Here are my suggestions for improvement: 1) I agree that the lead paragraph signals little about what is to come; 2) Be sure to provide the year in a sentence that contains statistics and add the reference at the end of that sentence. If there are a number of sentences with statistics from the same source, then add the same reference at the end of the last such sentence. 3) Remove the Bibliography; integrate any sources that you actually cite in the References section (If you are not discussing Boserup or Razavi & Miller, you should delete these references. There are ways of discussing these, of course; for example, checking out Boserup on gender division of agr labor in South Asia--she has a discussion of the what she called the "male-farming system." So, your discussion of GDOL in Agr could remind readers of what this pioneer had to say about the to pic. This would accomplish some course integration too!). You added Sen and Nussbaum, which is good, but a) you should link them; b) theirs is "the Capabilities Approach" and not a "study of capabilities," (also to be linked!); Finally on the references, provide full information on the sources, e.g. the citation 5. Who's the author, year, title, publisher? 4) The land rights section can be elaborated by referring to Agarwal's work (Panda and Agarwal 2005) on how women's ownership of a house and/or land reduces marital violence against women. 5) Could you add more update on the FTA: is it still under negotiation "as of early 2013"? 6) You need to support many sentences with citations. The entire Background section, for example, cites only only source and that comes at the end of two paragraphs of discussion. The Cooperatives section does not have a single citation! 7) You could elaborate more the Cooperatives section, with one or two key sources on ' women in agricultural cooperative s in India.' There is room to add links to other Wikipedia articles. I added externalities, empowerment, land rights, and free trade agreement. 8) If you can add the female and male LFPR stats for India in general from the HDR 2011 table 4, it would give a comparative perspective on how women's LFPR in agriculture compares (for 2009 women's LFPR in India was 32.8% compared to men's LFPR of 81.1% and would also allow course integration.) BerikG (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

error with wikipedia

I am not sure why however the cooperatives section of my article is not showing up as a seperate entity. If you go to the edit section it appears to be distinguished. -alev â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by Alev.bilginsoy (talk • contribs) 03:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The error stems from inconsistent use of the ref syntax. I made some corrections (e.g. added a backward slash, as a result of which we can now see the "Cooperatives' section!) but there must be at least one other such problematic reference command. Also note that the SEWA citation in the text is problematic. In addition, the References need attention to provide consistent information: for example, you added Panda and Agarwal but there is only the article title; you need to add the journal title, the page numbers. Another citation starts with the year! Just follow a standard citation style: last name of author, first name, year, title of book/report or article, (if article, then add title of journal, page numbers) (if book, add publisher). BerikG (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, give the article a read-through. The first sentence is missing text!BerikG (talk) 06:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)