User talk:Mpbreaugh
| This user is a student editor in Oregon_State_University/HST_310_The_Historian's_Craft_(Winter_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Mpbreaugh, 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)
Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article
[edit]Hi Marshall,
1)The lead needs to be more specific. What was the convention, exactly? You can improve the lead by including some of the material from the subheading just below the lead into the lead itself. For instance, something like this: The 1848 National Convention of Colored Freemen was a meeting to discuss African American civil rights on the national level...
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) I would like to see you devote more space to discussing the topics that the convention covered rather than giving a detailed run-down of the schedule of each day. It is much more important to explain why the convention was meeting, and the key issues that the delegates discussed, than to explain so much about the different parts of the meeting. Remember that your readers are going to want to know why this convention was significant. The fact that there was a prayer on one day, or the minutes got read on another isn't that important. The specific issues that the convention discussed, debated, wrote resolutions about, etc. should be a greater focus because that will be what readers care about in establishing the notability of this event. Going back through the minutes and adding more detail will help a lot.
4) Why is the North Star in the External Links? There should be something in the article that helps explain why you're including that link? Is it because the convention minutes were published in that newspaper?
5) 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. Please check your minutes again on this point and include information on women if possible.StaceySmithOSU (talk) 02:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
McDade Peer Review Comments
[edit]Peer Review Your lead in seems to be focused more on the Colored Conventions Movement as a whole rather than your specific convention. You should give more details about your convention in the lead in, such as where it took place or who in specific was attending, as well as outlining what the rest of your article will talk about. Your structure makes sense, but you might want to change the name of the section "Why the Convention Met" to something like "Topics Discussed at the Convention", which might make a bit more sense. The tone seems fairly neutral, but be sure you are correctly paraphrasing the works that you are citing. Your sources look reliable to me. You should definitely look over your article for grammar mistakes. I think you should also probably refrain from using the term colored people/men, even though that's what the original texts use. Overall, you might want to expand on certain sections, and definitely work on the lead in.Mcdadee (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs)