User talk:Tiearamoore
| This user is a student editor in Oregon_State_University/HST_310_The_Historian's_Craft_(Winter_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Tiearamoore, 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)
Peer review
[edit]-How could your peer improve the lead? You may want to add in the 1855 part into the bolded part of the lead, since there are multiple California conventions and it would make more sense to restate your title. I’m not sure if this is an intentional choice, but I think you may mean status and not “states” in the line “as African Americans held the states of second class citizens, maybe consider word choice as it’s a little unclear what you mean.
- Is the overall article structure clear? The structure is clear, but for the “Convention Participants and Issues” section, it may make it a bit more clear if you break up the people and issues a little bit more and expand on each topic separately.
- Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral? The tone stays mostly neutral and just reports the information, though it does become a little bit choppy with sentence structure and word choice at times due to having to fit in all of the quotes.
- Are the sources reliable? The sources you use are all good but other than the proceedings you really only use websites, so you may want to consider adding in a journal article or a book. This could even be for the people that you mentioned attended, just so you get in another type of source.
- What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article? You should really try to cut done on your use of quotes or take them out, given that the Wikipedia guidelines tell us to avoid having them, and they seem to be pretty prevalent in your article. You may just want to try to paraphrase (almost completely change and summarize the wording with a different sentence structure) instead.
- What other things would you add or fix in the article? For duplicate sources, you want to list them as such when you cite it so that they don’t come out as completely separate sources in your references section. This would just mean going back and restarting it as the same one as the first time you cited it.
Riley Scalfaro (talk) 03:31, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article
[edit]Hi Tieara,
I think you're off to a good start here. I would like to see you tackle some things for the final draft.
1) Be sure to proofread to fix problems with apostrophes here and there.
2) Use "African American" or "black" instead of "colored" in most places in the article (except the title and the lead, where you are referring to a specific event that had the term "colored" in the title). Using the word "colored" out of its historical context is offensive and should be avoided.
3) There weren't any slaves at the convention. Maybe you meant to say that the convention spoke on behalf of issues relevant to slaves? I would definitely change the first sentence. Also, it's much better to refer to the participants in the convention as civil rights activists, because abolitionists were focused mostly on the issue of ending slavery.
4) Disfranchisement means being excluded from voting rights. I think it would be better to use the term "marginalized" in your second paragraph.
5) I would change the focus of your "Legacies" paragraph to political representation, rather than legal representation. The conventions were much more aimed at giving African Americans a political voice (to change the law) than actual legal justice at the convention itself.
6) I would remove Frederick Douglass from your See Also section. It's unclear how he was involved with the California Convention.
7) Finally, were African American women involved in the convention at all? Our partner website, the Colored Conventions Project, really wants us to add material on women whenever possible.StaceySmithOSU (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
StaceySmithOSU (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Whittaker peer review comments
[edit]The lead seems good to me from what I read. The structure is clear except the first paragraph I'm not sure if the instructor wants a title for the paragraph? Each of the three main sections appears to be equal in the amount of text provided and the tone is neutral. The sources look legit from what I saw when clicking their links and reading the references. The main suggestion I have is don't quote as many times as I saw because if my memory is right, Wikipedia doesn't like quotes to be used. Also, it has about 2 quotes each section excluding the first seems to be too many in my opinion. Other than that seems to be good as far as I can tell. Dwhittaker74 (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs)