Talk:Self Employed Women's Association

message: I am a student at the University of Utah, taking a course on Gender and Economic Development. For my final project I am planning to update this entry. The bulk of my work will adding to the Goals section. I have looked on SEWAs web page and found that their goals consist of 11 questions and have found articles reporting on their work in some of those 11 areas including health, childcare, housing, etc. I think these are the most important and useful pieces of information, so I am planning to add 11 subsections to the goals section and provide some information there. As I look at the existing section of Sister Organizations, I don't think this section is necessary, and each organization would be better handled with their own wiki, and most of these organizations are listed on SEWAs own web page anyway. Would anyone object if I deleted the Sister Organizations section? Mlittlefield (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: This article was well organized and explained very well about the organization in detail and in general.  Maybe if the history was first, it may add value to the recent information because it would make sense to be in chronologically in order. It is up to you to decide.  The sources seemed to be scholarly and it was comprehensive.  I think that it would be more insightful to see the negative consequences of women a part of SEWA for not being accounted for and not being protected in the labor force. It is an idea to consider.  Also, the word head-loader in the section of history is red, so go ahead and remove it.  Other than that it was a nice article about SEWA. Tawneefranc (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: The Goals section reads well, and the presentation is good, but the section needs some elaboration and updating (some info is quite dated). Also, the piece remains at around 1300 words (you have not expanded it by much since the first version). I don't know whether you can locate additional sources to make these updates in the next day. It might be worth checking the WIEGO website (they publish research on organizing informal workers). Also I recall sending you a couple of sources on SEWA; they might be useful. There is no course connection. You could consider including a few sentences in the goals or rephrase some sentences so as to connect to ideas from the course and add a few course readings as references. As for the current version: I suggest adding time dimension (e.g. "as of <year>") in a number of places. For example, under "Assets": "It began with 4000 women each contributing Rs 10." The citation is from 2003, but when did it begin? And you should add links to other Wikipedia articles.BerikG (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Feedback

message: Hi, so I had a few thoughts on how to improve this article. First off, I wanted to say that the lead section was very strong, and a great example of how article leads should read. Great job. One thing that I would work on fixing however is the section "sister organizations." It seems excessively long, and has NO SOURCES! Ah! So, that is a major thing to clean up. The structure of the article is also laid out really well, and I'm excited to see how this article develops as it is worked on. Good job. Kmwebber (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 1

message: Hi, it's me again. I really like some of the changes you made to the article, and I think your new section is really a great step. However, I do think that there was some problem with neutrality in the new section. I feel like you really are celebrating SEWA, which I understand that it's a great organization, however for wikipedia purposes you do need to be more neutral. Also, you could maybe link to a few more things. ALSO, you probably shouldn't link directly to their website. But, I really like where this article is going and it is very well written. Best of luck to you! Kmwebber (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review 2

message: Great work! I think you definitely should reword neutrality and sourcing. This article should read as an overview on the organization, not an argument for why the organization is important. Other than that, I look forward to seeing where the article goes! Venkam (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review #2 

message: Hi there! Your article has an excellent structure and covers a wide range of what SEWA is involved in and aims to do. I think you could look into various opposing opinions about SEWA and include those in the article right now. Try looking deeper into why TLA and SEWA split, that seems like a great opportunity to bring in a differing viewpoint. Your lead section could use a bit of work. The main problem that I saw was the flow of it. Look at reorganizing what you have into something that reads a bit easier. I think you've made some great progress and I am looking forward to seeing what you do next! Brookeenglish (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review