User talk:LynzeeWhite

Journal Link

You should have a link to your journal on your user page, please. Thanks. Also, remember to date your posts. —Grlucas (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will take care of this, thank you. LynzeeWhite (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, LynzeeWhite, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citation and Copyedit

Good try on the citation, but you're missing some key information. It's never enough just to put in a URL.

Check your copyedits again. —Grlucas (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about Wikipedia

Did you listen to my June 17 audio response? You should, then edit your discussion post accordingly. —Grlucas (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Grlucas Thank you for your feedback. I went back and listed to your audio response, and made some changes. I broke up the big block of a paragraph into four smaller sections. I changed my title to something more unique, and I took away the footnote that led to a Wikipedia article, and put it into the body of the paragraph. I appreciate your feedback. LynzeeWhite (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LynzeeWhite: 👍🏼 —Grlucas (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Sidney Lanier Cottage is a representation of a neutral article; however, it does lack a handful of important information. Not only that, but it is missing supporting evidence and reliable sources. Information in regards to chronology is not evident in the text. His educational experiences are not included. Scholarly sources on Galileo indicate all of the missing components. The article shares a lot about the founder but does not share a lot of information on the facility itself. The lead does give a good start, revealing to readers the importance of the article; however, it does NOT reflect the entire article as a whole. I would recommend changing the length of each section to enhance the importance a little more.

Words and phrases remain neutral throughout the article. The writer uses good choice of words to not give opinion based information. Some of the references take us right back to a Wikipedia article, which is not considered a reliable source. Reference 4 has a missing or empty title, which needs some assistance.

The article demonstrates a picture of the location, but does not give a valid address or information. Reference 9 gives the full address and is recognized to be a scholarly source. The 3rd reference is not necessary, because a only a sentence of the source is referenced towards the article. Tionnetakala (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tionnetakala Thank you for taking the time to review the article! I appreciate your feedback, and will ensure that I use some of the tips you have given me! LynzeeWhite (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim's Peer Review

I will be reviewing your assigned article: Sidney Lanier Cottage. According to the college's Talk page, this article is a stub. That makes it a great choice for expansion.

Lead Section Examination

The lead section of the current article seems anemic. It could be improved with more references to its transition and life as a museum.

Structure Examination

The article's current structure seems logical. It follows chronological order from the Cottage's origins to its standing today as a Museum.

Checking for Balanced Coverage

The article is relatively short so it does not appear to have content that is off-topic. The content that the article currently has seems to be fact-based and balanced from all available perspectives. No particular source seems to be influencing the article's content over the other. It should be noted that on the Cottage's Talk page, that a fellow Wikipedian has asked for clarification regarding which historic district that the article refers to.

Checking for Neutral Content

The article's tone seems to be very neutral. It does not appear to swing in one direction over the other. All of its content appears to be fact-based. Neither positive nor negative information appears to take precedence over one another. All information in the article appears to be reported fairly.

Checking for Reliable Sources

Most statements in the article appear to be directly linked to reliable source materials. The article uses nine sources which seems to support content throughout. These sources seem to be used in a balanced way. No statements appear to lack sources.—TSchiroMGA (talk) 09:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TSchiroMGA Thank you for your in depth review of the article I have selected. I will be going through and reviewing your suggestions, and seeing how I can implement them. LynzeeWhite (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]