Talk:Lynching of Zachariah Walker

Peer Review
1.What does this article do well, what impressed me? I was very impressed with the detail overall, as well as the writing style for the most part; I feel it made the article an interesting read. 2. What changes would I suggest, and how would they be an improvement? When it comes to changes I'd focus on one area in particular and that is the media response, I feel it does add a lot to the article, however we are supposed to use historical academic journals for the project; I feel it can still be used but rely more on journal sources throughout the entire article. 3. What's the most important thing the author can do to improve the article? Other than add more detail, and make the articles longer (if possible with sources you have) I would suggest relying more on journal sources and maybe shortening the media response section. 4. What could be applicable for my article? I enjoyed how the answers were still detailed for being relatively short, for my article I normally do what I feel can be too much, however I feel I will try and keep them shorter and more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatleymd (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC) Heatleymd (talk) 05:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)Heatleymd

1. What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? What impressed me about this article is that you gave a very clear telling of the events of the riot. I was easily able to discern what happened from your article. Your article was also very clearly organized and each section was a manageable length to read. Your article was concise, but still very informative.

2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? One of my suggestions is to add links throughout your article to help the reader further their reading about some information in the article. It would improve your article by better integrating it with the rest of wikipedia. I would also suggest editing the citation for this sentence, “Both Walker and Rice proceeded to draw their guns but Walker was first to the trigger and shot Rice twice. The officer died not long afterwards.[5][6]” Given the double citation at the end I was confused where the information came from, since the citations were in different formats. This would make it easier to locate where your information came from.

My last suggestion is to fix a few simple grammar mistakes where you use unnecessary commas such as in the sentence “Not long after all of Walker's suspected killers were acquitted, Pennsylvania Governor, John Tener, stated that for either carrying out murder or by aiding said murderers, the residents of Coatesville were a disgrace to Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.[15]” I think you should remove the comma before and after John Tenor so it reads “Pennsylvania Governor John Tener stated..." This would improve your article grammatically.

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The most important thing you could do to improve this article is a little bit more background about the setting of this incident. You mentioned in the legacy section that many people regarded Pennsylvania as “tolerable towards African Americans,” so it might be helpful to explain more about why that is. It would be helpful to add information such as the demographics of Coatesville to better put into perspective the race relations in Coatesville.

4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I believe your Media Response and Legacy sections added valuable information to the article and furthered my understanding of the responses to the event, and the more lasting impact of the incident. I am considering applying similar sections to my article. Ramizlf (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

1.	What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? I was impressed with the author’s synthesis of information. This article was written very concisely. 2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? It’s well written, so I would check for grammatical errors, like misplaced commas—stuff like that. Are there any more details you could provide for the Incident section? The paragraphs are around the same length, but I feel as if there could be more information in the Background and Incident sections, especially around Walker’s confession. Most of this information takes place between August 12 and 13, but how long after that did the confession take place? Do we know how the police officers got Walker to confess? Was Walker still badly injured when he confessed?

3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I’m intrigued at what the community response to the lynching of Zachariah Walker was. There’s a little section about in the first paragraph of the “Legal Response.” If the articles have information on ways that Coatesville residents stopped Philadelphia authorities who were investigating the lynching. There’s definitely tension between the way the Coatesville residents viewed the lynching and how most of America saw it. However, I don’t know how much information Hysler and Zigler’s articles provide. 4. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! I really enjoyed the organization of this article. I’ll look to organize my article in a similar way to provide better context to David Amoss’s trial. IJW27 (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Protest and Police in US History
— Assignment last updated by Artleyk (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)