User talk:SandhuT

Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article

Hi Tanveer,

I think you're off to a very good start with your article. Most of the key components are here, they just need a bit more work as you move toward the final version.

1)I think the lead needs to be more general and straightforward. If you look at several Wikipedia articles, you'll see that they really just state the most basic facts in the lead. I would go with something like: "The 1865 South Carolina State Convention of Colored People was the first statewide meeting of African American civil rights activists after emancipation and the end of the Civil War. The delegates discussed (briefly list key issues)." Then, put all your other material on the specific date, meeting place, etc. under a new subheading such as "Organizing the Convention."

2)Remember to go ahead and delete your preliminary bibliography at the bottom of the page.

3) The section called "Outcomes of the Convention" could use some specific language. Instead of saying "they," refer to the people in the convention as African Americans, freepeople, or convention delegates and make it clearer that they were seeking to advance the social welfare of newly freed African Americans in the South.StaceySmithOSU (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Douglas feedback for peer review

I think in all your article is very well done. To improve the lead, I would reorganize the sentences in the first paragraph to state why the state conventions were created before introducing the 1865 convention. The overall structure of the article is also very clear. The separation with the overview and outcomes make it easy to navigate. The article is also very balanced when it comes to coverage on the topic. However, when reviewing this article I wondered if this was the first state convention? That would be good to add. There are also plenty of sources for the reader to reference which is very good and they all are reliable. When proof-reading, I realized you said " the convention convened for 6 days, 20th-25", but that is only 5 days. A lot of sentences in the article also start with "They did this" or "They wanted this". I would suggest rewording the beginnings of these sentences to make it more diverse. Other than that, well done! Douglmai (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC) Maiya Douglas — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs)

Healy feedback from peer review

The structure, from what I can see, is nonexistent so I would recommend you have three sections in your article. One could be the summary, another could be the prominent people that were at your event, and the third could be your citations. Your coverage of the topic so far is very balanced and neutral so I would just recommend to continue with that tone. There are no sources that I can see so you should try the databases we have access to through the OSU library. Some proof reading/writing advice I would give is that you should at least put in a title. Something that I would have you add to your article is any information you can find on your topic because at the moment there is nothing visible in your sandbox. Healym24 (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs)