Talk:Kwesi Prah

Group 21
Mostly, I think your article reads well! I think it meets the elements of quality articles in that the lead lays out the foundation for the article nicely, the sources seem reliable, and the content is neutral. I think that perhaps where the article could use improvement would be in how balanced the coverage is and in the clarity of structure. These two things are very interrelated, so to remedy both, I think the coverage could be a bit more comprehensive. I see mentions to Africa's complicated history, but I wish there was either a link to a page detailing what that refers to, or a subsection on it(though I bet a page exists so don't create more work for yourself if you don't have to). I think that little bit of background knowledge could bring in a bit more context and clarify what exactly it is that Prah has done. Similarly, should you decide to summarize a little about Africa's history, you could also summarize Prah's key concepts as well, or link to a page if that's an option. I think a little more depth on his strategies to remedy a complicated history could also clarify things. Beyond this, my other tip is just related to grammar. In the Career section specifically, keep consistency of the tense you are using in mind. Besides this, I think the article looks and reads professionally. Great job!

Zoe Albrecht (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We added a link to a page on Africa's history to help clarify what was going on at the time in Africa. We fixed grammar issues and verb tenses. Klinen15 (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Group 21,

So, I took a look at this and it seems like you guys are doing very well. Like Zoe said, the sources seem good to me too. Some things I would look at, just as little details, would be adding more information in the Early Life section, like date of birth, and perhaps expand a little on the problems the government was causing so it sounds less biased and more fact based. It would also make the section a little less confusing. Under Career, check some grammar tense issues (like becomes and moves should be became and moved) to make it read a little more smoothly. Also, under the CASAS, it might be more seamless to tie in the bottom portion of what they do to the first paragraph, and maybe add a little more information. Sorry about the long entry, but I hope this information helps you all out a bit.

Aaron.Shukert (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)129.82.198.35 (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. We are working on finding more information on his early life but so far his date of birth is not listed. We will keep searching though. We have revised some grammar has you suggested. The article is now more fact based and we will continue to grow on Africa's government. We expanded the first paragraph as well. Klinen15 (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Group 21,

I read your article and I really enjoyed it! A few improvements, would be I think that the first paragraph, the introduction could use a bit more depth. I also thought the early life could use a bit more information. I would also suggest adding links to the specific Universities that he worked at in the Career section. Also in the career section it appears the tense changes from when you said, "has worked" and then changed to "moves" rather than moved and "becomes" rather than became. Just try to stick to one tense. :-) Along side with linking, you may consider linking his work/publications to the article if that is available. Also, just proofread for grammar and punctuation. OVERALL, this is a wonderful article and you guys did wonderful! Super impressive!!! Hope all of this info helps y'all out!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlcummins (talk • contribs) 18:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions. We have fixed the grammar issues that we overlooked initially. I have added links to some of his articles so that readers can view the documents themselves. Klinen15 (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Group 21!
I really enjoyed looking through your entry. It really looks like it is coming along just perfectly. Your headlines look engaging, and I was really drawn by the amount of detail that you added in each section. The only thing that I would say is to try to add more to your intro. It did seem a bit flat to me, and being that this is almost the most important section of you entry, it would be very helpful if it was also one of the strongest. Also, it seems as if he had a deep connection with CASAS, so what I would strongly suggest would be to add a link where a reader could go and learn more about this organization. It would be extremely helpful to add more depth to a lot of the subheadings. More sources would be useful. Lastly, I would just say to make sure to pay close attention to not let grammar slip away! Its so easy to make small mistakes. Other than that I see this becoming a strong entry so keep up the good work! I tried to not repeat what my group members say, but I do agree with a lot of the things that were said by Zoe, Aaron and Hannah! Keep up the good work :) Yesica1997 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. We have used your suggestions in our article. We changed the grammar so that tenses are all the same. We have also add external links so that readers can learn more and view his articles. Klinen15 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice start on your article draft, but it still needs a lot of work.


 * Every statement in the article needs to be supported by a reliable source, and the reader needs to be able to connect the statement with the source. This is especially important for biographies of living people. To that end, you need to include inline citations throughout the article.
 * Your lead section needs to be improved. It should include all the major points of the article. One shouldn't have to read all the way to the end of the third sentence to know where he works or what he does. This should be at the start of the article (though it should also be detailed more, later on).
 * You need to include links to other articles, so that readers can learn more about the topics. You shouldn't include external links in the body of the article though.
 * Your tone isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. There's nothing wrong with short sentences, but you shouldn't have so many. The structure needs to be less A happened, then B happened, then C happened. You need to work with verifiable facts - don't say he decided to do this, then decided to do that. Just say what he did. The decision-making process is internal - the actions are external and verifiable.
 * Saying is a strange construction. You wouldn't say that about a US-based professor - that his ties with North America begin with his birth in, say, Belize. Africa, after all, is the second-largest and second most populous continent; you shouldn't treat it as a single entity except in situations where, say, you'd treat North and South American as a single entity.
 * Section headers use sentence capitalization, not title capitalization; only the first word of the title, and proper nouns, should be capitalized. (If you reply to this message here, please include  in your response, to ensure that I see your reply.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to review our article. We have added sources to every statement in our article. We have improved the lead section by adding to it and giving a more clear statement about who he is. The tone has been edited and the sentences are changed so that they are not short and based on events happening. We fixed the sentence "His ties with Africa begin with his birth in Ghana because we realized that it was an oddly stated sentence. The section headers have been revised so that only the first word in the title is capitalized. Klinen15 (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)