User talk:Halleylane
| This user is a student editor in University_of_Florida/African_American_Literature_I_(Fall_2020) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Halleylane, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
[edit]_by_Ron.jpg)
You're doing such a fantastic job! Keep it up
Mr.Ek0 (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Awesome job on this article, I learned a lot about Domingo's story. The lead is clear and concise with a neutral tone, I think adding a part that previews the sections of the rest of the article would be helpful for readers. The content is clear and concise and doesn't have any biased statements or leading statements which is great. The works section is informative. One thing that could be helpful is including a legacy section that finishes off the article to have a more detailed view of Domingo’s death and how his work influenced or impacted people. Overall the content is solid with an informative and unbiased tone. I thought the article was organized nicely and easy to follow. Hopefully, y'all are able to find a photo, but I understand it's a new article, y'all are doing a great job with the article so far. Keep it up!
Leoyssanel13 (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hey Halley! I really like your Wikipedia page and I really like the amount of information that was written throughout the Wikipedia page. For example, I really appreciate the small synopsis of each work that Wilfred wrote. Some improvements you could possibly make would be to add more photos to the page. I understand that it is very difficult to add pictures to Wikipedia but my advice is to kinda play it off that it is your photo because you're not using the image for any profit so I do not think there would be any legal repercussions (do not fully take my advice I am not a lawyer). But from an information standpoint, I think you could add a little bit more information to the Biography because it would be really helpful to know a little bit more about his political career or how his writings impacted politics. Other than that this was a great Wikipedia page and I am very excited to see what information you add in the future! Andresleogaona (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Hi, you have a great start for your article so far! It's very informative and concise. The language used is in no way trying to persuade the reader in any particular way, and the resources you use are well balanced. Your lead is good as well and is a great layout for what is to come. I would suggest adding more information about Domingo's death and his legacy if you can find that information. I enjoyed the way you broke down his works and gave a quick summary of each one, that was a nice touch as well. Overall this is great, I can't wait to see how you develop it more! Yasmiiine (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]General info Whose work are you reviewing? VerityIncog, Halleylane Link to draft you're reviewing: Wilfred Adolphus Domingo Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes it gives a clear and concise introduction to who Wilfred is. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes the intro sentence is very clear. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes the Lead includes major sections and links to each. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No, everything the lead has, is included on the article. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is very concise and to the point Lead evaluation The lead is concise and to the point. I like how brief and easy it is to read, while still having links and tags to the article below. Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content added is relevant and adds to the strength of the article. Is the content added up-to-date? From what it seems, the information is up to date and follows the flow of the current article. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I dont believe that there is information missing. If there is anything, maybe add more to the topics. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, through his education and experiences, Wilfred was able to share his stories through his writings to educate others. Content evaluation I think the group did a good job creating an imagine into WIlfred's life. The ties between his childhood and influences definitely help with the understanding of his later works. Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Yes there is nothing biased from what I can tell. Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No there are no heavy biases in the article. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I believe the view points are represented well and tie in together in a good manner. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the article stays unbiased and gives a good description of the experiences and influences he went through throughout his life. Tone and balance evaluation I think the article has a good tone and sticks to the facts. It stays away from the bias and persuading terms. It balances his childhood with the connection to later works. Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes it seems that the sources used are both reliable and very informative. Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The articles reflect well into the literature on the topic. Are the sources current? The sources seem to be relatively current with the article. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes the links span from all different time periods as well as different authors in order to see a large amount of opinion and views on Wilfred's life. Check a few links. Do they work? yes the links work Sources and references evaluation The sources and references flow well together even though they have their differences. They tie well with the information at hand and help assist readers if they would like more in depth information on certain topics. Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes the content is very well written and easy to follow. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I didnt see any grammatical or spelling errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I think it was very organized and flowed through his life well. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There is a large amount of variety in the links which makes for a good article. Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? the articles follow the path in order to find information on his life and experience. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I believe it has improved in the flow and growth of the article. I think the writings part is the strongest when it breaks down the meanings of each. Each writing came from his life and growth in the time period. What are the strengths of the content added? I think the biggest strength is the writings. How can the content added be improved? I think to improve the content the group can possibly show if there is any influence of his writings in more modern times today. This will show the true importance of Wilfred in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachcorliss (talk • contribs) 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)