User talk:Dwhittaker74

Peer Review

- How could your peer improve the lead?

Add in the title in bold (that’s just what’s suggested for Wiki articles in general) and also possibly expand the lead with general information about the California conventions or the concept of them as a whole for an introduction-type piece, just to make it a little beefier.

- Is the overall article structure clear?

The sections are clear for the most part, though you may want to change the section titles into headings instead of sub-headings just for formatting’s sake. It also may be a good idea to break up the information within the headings to their sub-topics just to make it a little more clear.

- Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral?

Yes, most of the information is presented in a way that’s more of a report of what happened and very objective.

- Are the sources reliable?

Yes, good job getting in a few articles, the conventions were not the easiest things to research.

- What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article?

You should probably add-in a “See Also” heading with links to other related Wikipedia articles (It’s suggested in the first draft suggestions) and a “References” heading for your references to go under.

- What other things would you add or fix in the article?

Since you have a lot of general information within the sections that don’t necessarily flow together, especially in the leadership section, you may want to try formatting it more as a list, or just break it up a little more so that it’s easier to process and read at first glance. Good information overall though. Riley Scalfaro (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article

Hi David,

I think you have some good material here. Here are my comments about how to improve the article for the final draft.

1)The lead needs to be more specific. What was the convention, exactly? Your reader is unlikely to know about these conventions, so give the basics such as: a meeting of black residents of California to discuss civil rights.

2) Use Townsend's first name the first time that you mention him.

3) The last two sentences of your first large paragraph need to be rewritten to eliminate errors and improve clarity. There is incorrect verb tense in the second to last paragraph, and subject/verb disagreement in the last sentence.

4) Why was Thomas Detter important to the convention? The sentence about him is short.

5) Make sure to include a "See Also" section that contains links to other Wikipedia articles that are relevant (and that aren't already linked in the text of your article).

6) Delete the preliminary bibliography section and retitle it "References," so that your citations appear underneath "References."

7) The first sentence of your first long paragraph does not really have a neutral/objective tone. I would rephrase that first sentence to say that Rudolph Lapp identified these men as educated, talented, etc. so that it doesn't look like your own personal opinion.

StaceySmithOSU (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Moore feedback for peer review

Peer Review Wikipedia Draft

- How could your peer improve the lead? Hi David, I think you did a really good job providing detail in your lead, but I would suggest boldening your title to make it stronger. Additionally, it might be easier to just say that this convention occurred between the 9th and 12th of December, rather than listing out each specific day.

- Is the overall article structure clear? I understand where you are coming from but you had suggested that there are 3 other important conventions that covered colored citizens after the Civil War, but neglect to talk about them. With this, I would suggest to leave that part out and maybe just focus on the one convention you are researching.

- Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral? Through this draft, you talk a lot about the convention’s members and I think that you should maybe separate each one of these actors into their own heading perhaps. The heading title could be “Convention Participants”. I would also avoid using generalizations in your article, to stay away from a biased tone. Explain rather than tell.

- Are the sources reliable? The sources that you have chosen to use look to be reliable. We have chosen some of the same journals so that makes me believe that these are providing you with information based in California, which is correct to use. Furthermore, you used a lot of websites, but I encourage that almost because there are very few sources on these conventions.

- What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article? I would suggest proofreading your article again for spelling mistakes. I am sure they are just typos, but I noticed you wrote “hughest” instead of “highest”. Simple spelling checks are what I mainly suggest. Additionally, maybe spacing out some headings to describe your convention participants more thoroughly would strengthen your article.

- What other things would you add or fix in the article? Besides the boldening of your heading and a few revisions of words, I think your article is well on its way. You included some important detail for the history of this convention and with that, I think you should expand a little bit more on the importance of these conventions and especially expand more on the legacies. Tiearamoore (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Tiearamoore (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs)