User talk:Addiedaye
| This user is a student editor in Oregon_State_University/HST_310_The_Historian's_Craft_(Winter_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Addiedaye, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review: Dominic Laiacona
[edit]Hey Addison,
Lead: I noticed you just mentioned to search the Fugitive Slave Law Convention in place of your introduction. I don't think you necessarily need to include everything they wrote on that page but you could just write in the date of the meeting and that they met in Cazenovia, New York at the First Congregational church of Cazenovia on the first day and moved to the Orchard of Grace Wilson's School to accommodate more people. Or instead of that you could just write "The Fugitive Slave Law Convention converged on August 21-22, 1850 to discuss their opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850." I feel like that one sentence would work too if you linked the pages that are in the sentence.
Structure: I thought you did well with the categories you chose. The convention proceedings section clearly explains the main discussion of the convention. you were very diligent in the section section to categories everyone that attended by including their roles. Good job.
Coverage: You are balanced throughout the piece and remain neutral in writing. I would only say maybe to clarify what was discussed on day one and day two.
Sources: After looking over your sources, they all seemed very reliable. The newspaper article was a good find. I used some of the same sources as you.
Other notes: Other than differentiating between day one and day two and adding more to your lead, I would say you should look up some of the people that you mention and see if they have wikipedia pages so you can them to you page. You could also add sub headings under the leadership and groups category for each paragraph.
Laiacond (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]I think if you wanted to expand or clean up the existing lead you could add more about what actually happened and what was discussed at the Convention.
The article structure is clear, though I would argue that the "Convention Leadership and Groups" section is a little superfluous. There just seems to be a list of people who were there, which without at the least linking to pages for those people if the page exists or they were notable people, has very little value for the article. What actually happened at the Convention and what were the topics, and arguments, they were discussing?
The coverage is balanced and the tone is neutral. I don't have much more to say about that; nothing needs to be changed in that department.
Your sources seem good. The newspaper article is useful. If possible, a secondary scholarly source would help to expand the article if one exists.
My proofreading suggestions would only be to look over any comma uses one more time. With regards to the "Convention Proceedings" section, I think the paragraph on Chaplin is relevant to the Convention, but since a page exists for Chaplin the extended summary isn't as necessary as noting that a resolution to raise money was brought to the Convention.
Also, Frederick Douglass and the other notable attendees listed on the existing page seem like things that should be given more elaboration in the main article.
Earleyc (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article
[edit]Hi Addison,
The article looks good so far! I'm really happy to see your emphasis on women throughout it.
Here's what I would change. Most of my changes are minor: 1) Under Convention Proceedings, I think it would help to list three or four of the most important of the 17 fugitive slave law resolutions that the convention passed. That will give readers a better sense of the politics and goals of the group.
2)I don't think you need to mention quite so many names in the "Leadership and Groups" section. I would primarily stick with mentioning the most important figures (and the women).
3) You call Chaplin by his first name in the first paragraph. Change that from William to Chaplin to keep a more distant and professional tone.StaceySmithOSU (talk) 23:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)