Draft talk:John Henryism

Peer review
A good contribution overall, and hopefully my suggestions are helpful for you. I'm glad I got to read about this topic! I think this is a great contribution already, and hopefully you find my suggestions helpful. Feel free to ask me to clarify or just ignore whatever you don't think is helpful. Keep up the good work! Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Broadly, I think the prose is good, but reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. I'd recommend looking at Writing better articles which has some suggestions on styling your writing. The lead (intro) gives too much detail too early (see the Inverted Pyramid section in the last link). One of the few things the current lead of John Henryism does well is that it says exactly what the topic is up front: "John Henryism is...", where I feel like your current lead isn't accessible if the reader doesn't know about the John Henry legend. MOS:INTRO gives good advice on how to improve the lead paragraph, especially MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH.
 * 2) I think there's a lack of secondary sources for some of the claims, but maybe not. I think more important is that they have inline citations so that it's clear who is making these judgments. For example: "These findings lend support to the established relationship between anger expression, psychosocial measures, race and health." is, I think, from the 1983 article, but it's unclear and editors might worry it's original research. If an entire paragraph is based on a single source, you should place the citation at the end of the paragraph, rather than the start.
 * 3) It's unclear how the Dollard and Miller section relates to John Henryism. I think the connection could be made more explicit in the text.
 * 4) You use "negroes" in quotes, but if that's the term the source uses, you should make that clear with intext attribution, and generally disprefer the term unless necessary for context. The paragraph on contentious and value-laden labels explains this more.
 * 5) I wish there were more secondary sources, but there are some in the existing article so I don't think this is a big problem.
 * 6) You moved this into draft space and listed it in Articles for Creation. I don't think you need to do that since that process is for creating articles which don't yet exist. You can feel free to add your contributions to the main article when you like, without having to wait for an AfC review.