Talk:Of One Blood (novel)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jaunarra, Hbberryhill, Selenangeorge, TarnishaT, AnnaNSimon, Mason C Bennett. Peer reviewers: Snshipp1, RavenaWolf, BolanleDahunsi, Brandoncooper001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Notes (10/24)
Hi! I have the following notes:


 * This needs more in-line citations, specifically ones about the short story.


 * The themes and background sections have statements that lack sources that back up the claim in relation to the book itself. Keep in mind that even if something seems obvious, the claim still needs to be backed up by a source that explicitly states the claim in question. This is incredibly important since otherwise this will be seen as original research and can be removed from a live article.


 * Make sure that any major claims, opinions, or theories are attributed to the person making them. Keep in mind that many of these are things that can be highly subjective to the reader and critic, so anything that sounds like an opinion should be attributed.

I hope this all helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize you were helping with this article or that it's part of a Wiki-Ed project. Perhaps you could look over this and clarify anything that needs clarifying. It was kind of a dense edit and mainly format/syntax cleanup, but the random mentioning of "Colleen O'Brien" seems to be a bit of WP:Namechecking without better attribution. Same goes for two persons attributed in the "Themes" section since they also don't appear to have article written about them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Just going to also add that there seem to be two hanging references in the "Reference" section; they don't seemed to be cited inline and it's not clear why they're there. Are they intended to be WP:PAREN, WP:GENREF, WP:FURTHERREADING or WP:EL? If they're PAREN or GENREF, then perhaps the section should be split into "Notes" and "General references"; if FURTHERREADING or EL, then perhaps a new section should be added. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about those - I think that they're likely sources used for the uncited claims, but I can't be entirely sure. It could be moved into a further reading section if the student doesn't respond, however. With the attribution to O'Brien, this was more to resolve some unattributed claims - there definitely needs to be more fleshing out with the article. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Author's history
Don't think the section "Author's history" is really needed in this article. Most of that information seems better suited for Pauline Hopkins. One of things about Wikipedia is that articles are typically written in summary style and then WP:WIKILINKed together; so, it's not necessary to repeat details found in one article in other articles when a simple link would serve pretty much the same purpose. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed this section since it doesn't seem necessary for the article. I understand that "About the author" mini bios are often found on the back covers of books, but this article is not the equivalent. It's an article about the book and information should focus on that. If there's anything in Hopkins' background which is directly connected to the writing of this book that can be supported to be so by citations to reliable sources, then perhaps that could be added to the "Background" section; there is no need, however, to add a mini bio of her because there already exists a Wikipedia article written about her where more details about her can be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
11/19/19: I was hoping to see more development from last week, but there is still considerable work to do here before this weekend. Almost everything I asked you for last week is still on the table. --Uncannydazzler (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi . It's not clear who you're addressing in your post or which of the above posts you were responding to; so, I've moved it to a new discussion thread. Please try and remember that Wikipedia talk pages are place where all editors can post suggestions on way to improve articles; it's not page specifically set up for only students of your university course to discuss their class project. If you're not familiar with how Wikipedia article talk pages should be used, then please look at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for reference. If you'd like to respond to a particular comment made by another editor, then the thing to do would be to add your post to the same discussion thread as theirs using proper indentation; just go to the section heading and click "Edit". On the other hand, if you'd like to start a new discussion thread altogether, then you can but you should do so at the bottom of the page under a new section heading by clicking on "New section" (located at the very top of the page).Please also understand that neither you nor your students have any final editorial control over the article's content as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Articles can be edited at anytime by anyone from anywhere in the world. As long as others are editing in good-faith and doing so in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, things tend to go smoothly; it's only when others tend to be more focused on other things (e.g. a class grade, a teacher established guideline) that things sometimes breakdown and problems occur. There are really no deadlines when it comes to improving articles and some articles are continuously improved in spurts over many years. So, if you feel an improvement should be made, then please be WP:BOLD and feel free to do so yourself; if your change is undone by another editor in what is clearly not an obvious case of vandalism or some other serious policy/guideline violation, then follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and try to resolve any disagreements over content through article talk page discussion. If you're not sure whether something would be an improvement, then it's OK to be WP:CAUTIOUS. At the same time, if you want to give instructions to your student that they should make certain improvements, either do so on their respective user talk page or outside of Wikipedia. Either way, try and remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project where anyone, not just those in your class, can participate and help improve this article. If you're worried that the efforts of others might somehow affect their grades or cause them to miss a class deadline, then it might be better for you to have them work on a separate version of the article outside of Wikipedia so as to ensure you and those in your class have complete control over it; anything added to any Wikipedia page can, in principle, be edited by anyone at anytime, and Wikipedia editors don't even have any claim of ownership over pages in their own userspace. If you've got any questions about the above related specifically to article improvements, feel free to ask them here on this talk page. If you have questions on more general things like Wikipedia's various policies or guidelines, you can ask for help at the Wikipedia Teahouse, the user talk page of your course's Wiki-ED content expert or even at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)