Talk:Childbirth and Authoritative Knowledge: Cross-Cultural Perspectives

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance). Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

	Books

I think your lead section summarizes the major goals of the authors and what the work seeks to do. I assume from here you will be outlining the different parts of the book - the template you set up with "Part One" should be effective, but my suggestion would be to outline what each Part seeks to do collectively and then summarize the articles that appear in each section. I'm conflicted whether or not the discussion of authoritative knowledge should be in the lead section, or if it should just be mentioned in the lead and delved into more when you discuss the overall goals of the book, specifically in the first section - ultimately, it's up to you, but just something to consider. I might also mention a bit about the credentials of Davis-Floyd and Sargent and their reasons for collecting the anthology. This could be done by citing the collection directly, I believe, as you have a plethora of reviews which prove the validity of the text. Also, you might consider adding sections for any awards or honors received by the collection or any articles within it, as well as the overall critical reception. Moving forward, you might also want to add some external links for the many authors within this text; you'll have a lot of information when the article is complete, but I think if organized the way you intend, it will be be cohesive and clear. You've set yourself up very well, all of your sources look great, and I'm excited to see where you'll go with this! Dsmith18 (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2017 (UTC)dsmith18[reply]

Thanks for the input! I'll definitely take your comments into consideration. I am still working on fleshing out the article, but once I do that, I will work on making it as accurate as possible so as to make sure the article flows well and makes sense. Estewart97 (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]