Talk:Know-Nothing Riots of 1856

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juldav2000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ramizlf. Peer reviewers: IJW27, Heatleymd.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

peer review
1. I really enjoyed the level of detail within the article, and I enjoyed how it was written making the entire event easily understandable. 2. Suggestions for improvement and how it can improve? I would suggest less quotes in places where its arguably unneeded, such as in the government response where its explained "600 men of each" were deployed for the riot, I feel this is unneeded, as were some other quotes. For quotes always see if you can put it in your own words first, quotes should be used only in a certain situations. Beyond this I feel the parts explaining what happened to politicians by 1858 are not needed for this article. 3. Most important thing the author can fix? Other than the quote issue I found very little that could also be fixed here, some minor grammatical issues are the only other issue I can find that needs fixing. 4. What is usable for my article? I really enjoyed the detail which I feel found a nice balance between not being overbearing and including both lesser known info along with the overall important pieces of information. Heatleymd (talk) 05:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Heatleymd Peer Review (Directed to User:Ramizlf)

1. Identify things the author did well. The article was very well-written and it is evident that a lot of time and effort was put into researching this topic. The information flowed nicely and there were essentially no awkward transitions.

2. Add suggestions on how the author could improve and be specific. It feels like the article lacks a proper introductory paragraph and instead, jumps into a body paragraph.

3. Most important thing the author could improve. I would work on drafting a proper introductory paragraph which briefly summarizes the riot in general. Otherwise, this is a quite impressive article.

4. Things I could incorporate from your article into mine. This article had excellent information regarding the background of the riot. Perhaps I should add more background/context information to my article.

--MJVH2097 (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

1.	What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? The organization of this article was extremely impressive. The sub-sections within the 1856 Election Riots and about the Know-Nothing Party in Baltimore were really well written.

2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? There are some sentences that could be tweaked grammatically, like “The street gang known as the Plug Uglies' founding members were strongly nativist.” That sentence just needs a tweak or two to sound better. You could rephrase the sentence like “The founding members of the Plug Uglies street gang were strongly nativist.” There are also a couple missed commas and periods—minor grammar issues that are easy to fix. Also, I suggest that the “Origins” only sound have one section on “The Know-Nothing Party Platform,” while you then separate “The Know-Nothing Party in Baltimore” is in its own section with “Geography of Baltimore Politics” and “Election Violence in Baltimore.”

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think the most important thing is tightening up the sentence structure; the information is all there. It’s well-organized. Now, it’s just refining those small details and really making sure that there isn’t any superfluous information.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! Great job on the organization as I’ve said before. I’ll be sure to see how I can restructure my article in a similar way with sub-sections. IJW27 (talk) 04:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

add Baltimore to title
The title is highly misleading -- it is all about Baltimore. I am adding Baltimore to the title. The new page is Baltimore Know-Nothing riots of 1856 Rjensen (talk) 08:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)