User talk:Gloorjf/Trial and Execution of Frederick Hopt

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

I liked how you described the fact that Hopt had history with the Turner family prior to the murder. That provides important context as to why Hopt might have wanted to commit the alleged murder. Also, the article contains detailed paragraphs that explain the subject being described.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

The article doesn't include proper citation. While there is a references section, the notes section is empty.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

Add proper citation to match the information in the article with its respective source material. Don't forget to reference the specific page numbers as well.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article?

Your article goes into specific details about the arrest and trial of Hopt. My article lacks such specific details that yours describes in a well-written manner.

Temporary Profile (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?—The article is very well written and flows easily. Names and dates are organized well and clearly. The description of not only the events but also the legal matters surrounding the case are useful in the understanding of the article. 2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?—citations and links to other articles will make the article more official and bring it together to be a real article. Revising it to remove words that are uneccesarily opinionated (such as in the second paragraph of “Murder of John F Turner” where you say “that suspicious fact”). 3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?—the most important thing would be to put citations and links. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!—yes, I think the ending about the more modern effects is interesting. Missybryan (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) The details are laid out well chronologically and by subject and so the story flows well. Several sources to provide context.

2) there are minor proofreading edits to make, and if you bring out the section under reaction to include more details about different perspectives of the time i.e. newspapers, the church thoughts about executions. The article needs all citations and you could also try doing links to other wiki pages so people who are unfamiliar can easily get to facts. I need to do that as well in my article.

3) Citation citation citation :)

4) I agree with Missy in that I like how you pulled meaning from the past into a relatable and relevant subject for today. Jericho2911 (talk) 02:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]