User talk:Blomeli/Black immigration in the United States

Article Evaluation

I decided to search the Wikipedia article on #BlackLivesMatter since it is the most relevant to the course. While evaluating the article, I found it to be well structured in the subsections it included such as the finding of the movement, the organizational structure, and a timeline breakdown of all of the movement's actions. The citations I clicked on all worked well and came from reliable sources such as CNN, BBC, and The Atlantic. The article does a great job at remaining neutral by inserting several counter groups that have formed in response to #BlackLivesMatter such as All Lives Matter and Blue Lives Matter. Every paragraph includes a citation and is loaded with information. I had no trouble reading this article from an objective stand point because there was no persuasive language present. After viewing the talk page of the article I found the conversations amongst the different editors to be insightful to the process of putting together an article on Wikipedia. Blomeli (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Rachel's Peer Review

Hi All,

Hope this peer review helps. Based on the wiki education module, a good page includes the following points, so I have reviewed your draft based on these points.

• A lead section that is easy to understand: I think the biggest thing that your draft is missing right now is the structure, it seems there is a lot of content but it is not quite set up like a Wikipedia page yet. I find that creating those sections and headers helps to guide the rest of the page. The introduction that is provided has some great statistics, I would write it more as a narrative perhaps? To get the point across to the reader in a short few sentences what the page is for.
• A clear structure: As mentioned above, just need to put it in the wiki formatting with headers and sub-headers so it is easier to read.
• Balanced coverage:It looks pretty balanced once the bottom sections are filled with content, maybe add a section on opposing views or critiques, to concede to the other side or view.
• Neutral content: I thought the neutrality of the content was spot on, super factual and includes a lot of great statistics. I never felt like there were strong opinions being put across so that is great. Since Wiki is supposed to be a summary, I would just add some additional thoughts or summarizing sentences to finish out a section.
• Reliable sources: The statistics and sources as noted within the text look great, I can't see the reference list on the page though to see the list of sources.

Tons of great content!! :) I like that you also made sure to link other wiki pages within the articles content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel.oporto (talk • contribs) 04:20, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Katherine's Peer Review

Hello!

I think your lead starts off strong and broad. It might be nice to have a concluding sentence at the end of this section to help transition into the bulk of your article. I'd also like to see your intro say a few things beyond the raw statistics of Black Immigration, so I know what topics are going to be covered in this article.

There is a lot of information being covered here, but not all of it is organized in a way that is easy to find or connect to the main topic. The article may benefit from being separated into key topics (i.e. History of Black Immigration, Black Immigration Organizations, Current Events Regarding Black Immigration, etc.), so that all of your information is easily digestible to the reader and easy to navigate. A few headings would go a long way.

A summary section at the end could help tie the whole article back to the #BLM movement and current events.

I cannot see your reference list, which is a shame because I can see that you use a lot of references to back up everything you've said.

Overall, great work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by KatVhernan (talk • contribs) 04:54, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Albert Contreras Peer Review

It needs a little formatting help, but overall the content is good. "Notable Black Immigrants" section would be amazing to link to other pages would be a good section to add. You should look into the quotas for immigration because I think they were purposely set at a point that meant to limit immigration from non-European countries. They used immigration totals from a time before Black Americans were considered Immigrants and the pre-Chinese mass immigration's of the early 20th century. I think it is a really good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertcontrerasjr (talk • contribs) 20:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Behnan's Peer Review

Hello, Great work so far! Similar to the other suggestions, I think the first step to improve the wiki page would be to structure the page so that it is split up into sections with headings, and organize the page so that the reader is able to break down the page’s content. As for the lead, (which should also be separated from the rest of the article) although it contains important statistics that are really important for the article, I believe that there should be a bit more information that would include the remaining bits of the article to make the lead more thorough. As for neutrality, the article seems pretty neutral throughout- with just statistics and summaries, so great job! And for the references, the sources cited are great- I just can’t see the reference list though. All in all, really good work.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balbahsa (talk • contribs) 02:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC) 

Mariam's Peer Review

Hi y'all!

I think this is some great work/information, I can't wait to see the final page product. If I could add a couple things it would be just more headings/ subheadings ect to clarify your work but I am sure you are waiting to do that all at the end. Also, I think you have some great facts and I love how well you incorporated the citations. I also think the writing was very clear and easy to follow as well as unbias. Overall, great stuff I cant wait to see the rest of it and the rest of the topics you choose to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mabdalga (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Renae's Peer Review

Hey ya'll! You have incorporated great information so far. I like the way that each of the pieces are presented in an unbiased way detailing each topic for what they actually are. I'd say that the only area for improvement that I see is your structure. To improve this, ya'll could organize your paragraphs to transition smoothly while still holding the depth of each paragraph. I think that ya'll have done a great job of incorporating your data, facts and statistics about this topic! Similarly, as stated above, i think that a conclusion piece to tie in #BLM would be both influential and powerful to your finished product! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renaedotwilliams (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Daniel' Peer Review

Hi Everyone, I think your content is great and I don't mean to echo what was said before but I do agree that headings and subheadings would definitely help out in the article. I feel that the information is easy to understand but very informative at the same time. I do feel that the Anti-Blackness section could be further expanded with subheading for organization. I hope this article can help with content for said section. I do feel this is a great article and will hopefully be as impactful and educational as all the work you all put into it!

Dlwalker337 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Lynnette's Peer Review

Hi there!

Echoing the sentiments of the previous reviews, I agree that expanding on the anti-Blackness section as well as narrowing in on details and creating subsections would be helpful in expanding your article as well as making it less broad. I'd like to add that maybe also incorporating a section on Black immigrants from other continents on just Africa would be a good section! You could bring up stats of the immigration of Afro-LatinX, Black Europeans, People from the Carribean, etc. Maybe also touch on where they settle the most and if they migrate to certain places across the country or where their communities are most prevalent. I think that would bring more inclusivity to the immigration of the Black Diaspora, seeing that the migration does not just form the African Continent tenomewahTenomewah (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Hi - I have some notes:

• The first is that this is written a bit too much like an essay at points and also needs to better fit Wikipedia's style guidelines. The lead needs to better follow Wikipedia's style guidelines. Also, make sure that you avoid anything that could come across as a point of view. A final note with style is that you should only capitalize words in specific scenarios - MOS:CAPS has Wikipedia's stance on this.

• Also, make sure that you are avoiding original research. We can only summarize what is in the sourcing - we cannot synthesize new material. Make sure that the claims are explicitly stated in the source material.

• For example, the lead section asserts that black immigration is a more recent thing and uses the Pew Research Center as a source. The problem, however, is that the source given doesn't actually state this. It just gives a basic overview of black immigration since 2000. This source does, however it specifies voluntary migration - which separates voluntary from involuntary immigration (ie, someone who comes of their own free will vs someone who is forced to leave their country seeking asylum). There are also debates on whether or not people who came over because of the slave trade count towards immigration numbers. My point here is that the term "immigration" is a bit loaded and as such, it's really important to make sure that you're correctly summarizing the source material.

• When listing notable persons, they should be in plain list format like this and should only be in the list if there is an article for them or for something that they created. Also make sure that they identify as a citizen of the United States and also be very, very careful about whether or not the person identifies as Black. To sum up a whole can of worms, here's the general issue on Wikipedia (and in a lot of other spheres):

What makes someone black is often debated in terms of ancestry, skin color, and self-identification. Skin color alone is usually not enough, as this opens the door to how dark someone's skin needs to be in order to be considered black. (IE, if there's a minimum threshold, someone with very light skin or vitiligo may be excluded.) Country isn't always an answer because most countries do have people of various different skin color, even if they're the minority. Race is also an issue, as the US Census is actually fairly limited in who tends to be counted as black per the census (see top of page 2), which can also leave out people who may otherwise identify as black. Wikipedia tends to go by the US Census definition and how people self-identify (ie, black as a description vs Black). It's a pretty tricky situation, so make sure that you're careful to include sourcing. Iman is a person that's a little tricky as far as identification goes, as her article's talk page has a few discussions over whether or not she identifies as Black.

Other than this, make sure that you have a good overview of the history of Black immigration and that you use very strong sourcing - academic sourcing would be the best with a topic like this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)