User talk:Collinshannah78
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Florida/African_American_Literature_I_(Fall_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Collinshannah78, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
[edit]
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
| You are a star with editing! Keep up the good work! Mr.Ek0 (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC) |
A goat for you!
[edit]
keep up the good work
Johnnysnow2106 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
The article does a good job organizing information in a neutral tone. The article also does well with giving an overview of each article within the constitution. The article could continue to update information in The Impact Today section. This would help the reader understand how history connects to present day. In light of thinking about ideas I could adopt, I think summarizing the articles of the constitution was a good idea. I could add a summary section to my article, because it doesn’t have one. Also, the lead section was brief and concise, had clear structure, reliable sources, and neutral language. I feel the lead section gives a good overview of the founding members of the AASS. The lead doesn’t seem to overshadow any points over the other, and that gives the editors room to organize the article as needed. The transition between article is also clear, well organized, and well balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnysnow2106 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]This is a really good article. It is very detailed and carefully researched. The “Background” section, is great because it provides readers with context; I think maybe a few parts of it could be deleted since it is just background, but it is definitely really good. Moving on, the article is pretty neutral which is great. I am actually going through mine again to delete any adjectives that might be too telling. I saw a few adjectives there so I think that could be helpful. Also, I think maybe some more background on William Lloyd Garrison will be good to add.
All the links works, so, that’s great. The sources are also recent which is good. There is one from 1995 which may or may not be an issue. It seems to be pretty objective, so, I don’t think it is a problem. Really great job, I enjoyed reading it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabriellaFernandez0809 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi Hannah! The changes you have made to this article have really aided in the overall clarity and understanding of the page. Adding a section which contains the groups constitution was a superb idea, and filling out information about each of the articles in the constitution of the society allows for understanding of their precepts on a level not possible with the previous article. Improvements made to information about the societies leaders also is very helpful to the overall understanding of the society. I would seek to add even more information about the individuals which made the society work. All in all, great review! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackGolio (talk • contribs) 01:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)