Talk:Lesbian feminism

This article contains a translation of Lesbian feminism from en.wikipedia.

comments[change source]

My comments on this article:

complex words and phrases: ~~influential,~~ questions (when used like this as a verb), came together, second-wave

The first sentence doesn't say what the topic is. The third sentence describes it better: the information in the third sentence should be in the first sentence.

--Auntof6 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out the item above that has been taken care of. The first sentence still doesn't say what the movement is, and it also doesn't quite make sense.

Please keep the discussion here instead of on my talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How could I rearrange that first sentence of the article so it makes sense? Angela Maureen (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need rearranging. It needs to say what the topic is. I already said one way you could accomplish that: "The first sentence doesn't say what the topic is. The third sentence describes it better: the information in the third sentence should be in the first sentence." --Auntof6 (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I relocated third sentence into the first sentence. Good enough? Angela Maureen (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what you did. Now the only sentence that says anything about what lesbian feminism is, is at the very end of the article. Even that sentence doesn't describe it very well. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After modification, is Lesbian feminism simple enough for its own article page? Angela Maureen (talk) 23:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The change you made makes it a little better, but the information you moved should be right in the first sentence (and when you do that, you probably want to take out the words "the term"). Most of the first sentence doesn't really say anything anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Took out the term; wouldn't it be good enough here now Angela Maureen (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first sentence still doesn't explain what the subject is. Like I said above, the information in the second sentence doesn explain it, so that should be in the first sentence. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6, could you help me please? I'm having a hard time trying to get this thing into explaining what the subject is. Angela Maureen (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes. Try to keep in mind that the first sentence of any article should give the very basic information about the subject. Looking at the enwiki article, it looks like you tried to divide the long first sentence. That is good, but the part of that sentence that had the basic info didn't end up in the first sentence here.

I'll move this one back to mainspace now. I know going through all this was hard, and I admire you for sticking with it. I hope you learned something from it. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]