User talk:Riley Scalfaro
| This user is a student editor in Oregon_State_University/HST_310_The_Historian's_Craft_(Winter_2020) . |
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Riley Scalfaro, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1865 California State Convention of Colored Citizens moved to draftspace[edit]
An article you recently created, 1865 California State Convention of Colored Citizens, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article[edit]
Hi Riley,
You have a very nice start here. Here's what I would like to see you work on for the final version of the article.
1) I don't think it's necessary to mention every single delegate on all the committees, or even all the committees. It's much more important to explain the issues that the convention discussed. Instead of listing all the committees and members, it would be more effective to elaborate on the key issues (education, elective franchise/voting) and say more about those than to spend your space including every committee member's name.
2) For the section on women, I think you can delete the part about women not being that involved. The point for this section would be to highlight the ways that women were involved, so I would actually state these bits of information in more positive terms: Several women attended the convention, even though they had no formal voice in the proceedings. The women also raised money for a local black church and used the convention as a platform to publicize their fundraising efforts.
3) Finally, be sure to delete your preliminary bibliography at the very bottom.StaceySmithOSU (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Whittaker peer review comments[edit]
The lead I thought was good and liked the fact the important parts were bolded so I can't think of any improvements in that area. The structure of your article is very clear with multiple sections causing everything wrote about to seem clear when read. The tone is neutral and some sections have more than others, but it seems to be the sections with less information have less primary source material about them so it is perfectly understandable why. All the sources are reliable from how they seemed when I read and clicked on them. The section about the church having only two sentences may mean it could be better being combined with the first section or find one more sentence to add? I don't think that is a big deal leaving it the way it is at the same time. The way it is already I feel is a complete article and gave me a few ideas on how to improve my own article. Dwhittaker74 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Moore feedback for peer review[edit]
- How could your peer improve the lead? Hello Riley, thank you for sharing your research with us. As far as your lead can go, I would suggest leaving out generalizations. For example when you say that the convention had “many” speeches. I think that if you are to include those generalizations, your body should support it.
- Is the overall article structure clear? I understand what your article is communicating, but I would suggest for you to include more hyperlinks. It looks like you have chosen only two to use, and I think that by adding more, your article could cover a lot more detail.
- Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral? Your tone is overall neutral and you seem to leave out extended biases from being a historical writer-which is important. Furthermore, with the addition to a few more citations and hyperlinks, your argument could be a lot stronger.
- Are the sources reliable? Your sources look to be reliable, although some of your paragraphs neglect to use them. I would use more of the research that you have found and continue to cite those facts.
- What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article? I would suggest to proofread your headings and make sure your words are capitalized as they title your paragraphs. Also in your General Report of Main Committees, I would suggest that you use bullet points for those listings instead of separating them by space. This would look better on your article as well as organize it more.
- What other things would you add or fix in the article? By adding some minor detail and hyperlinks, I think your article becomes a lot more credible. Additionally, I think that by organizing your structure more with the use of bullet points, your research can come off a more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:1865 California State Convention of Colored Citizens, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm MDanielsBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:1865 California State Convention of Colored Citizens, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. MDanielsBot (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:1865 California State Convention of Colored Citizens[edit]
Hello, Riley Scalfaro. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "1865 California State Convention of Colored Citizens".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)