Talk:The Organization of Black Designers

[Untitled]
Hello! I was very impressed by the draft of your team's Wiki post! It did not seem hastily put together and I personally came across few--if any--spelling and/or grammar errors. The following are a few edits and suggestions I had while reading through it: Under the Organizations sub-heading, if DesigNation is the only organization mentioned, consider revising the heading to just 'Organization' or add in more organizations that you all can find for the Organization of Black Designers. Also under DesigNation, there is a sentence that says, "An area of huge success within this organization is the Portfolio Review." Is this "huge success" fact or an opinion? If it's a fact, can this be justified by data and cited from a source that claims the huge success? If not, consider revising this sentence to be less biased. At the very end of the DesigNation section, the 2016 conference is mentioned but it would be interesting if this small section was added to a little more. I would personally be interested in knowing if you could find facts/figures that show conference growth between the years since this organization was formed (i.e. have conference attendance numbers grown and can you claim that it's gaining notoriety?). In addition to these, I saw in your sources that you all cite Huffington Post as a source. I believe this news site has been said to be fairly liberally-biased and I wasn't sure if Wikipedia would accept this source as "scholarly" or not--maybe ask our TAs or Professor regarding if they think this source would be accepted. Lastly, I would just expand on a few of the sections you all have going. All of the sections seemed to be well-cited, but could use more depth in them. Lindsayt30 (talk) 21:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC) It would be interesting as well if you could insert some images of artwork from this organization like you mention has been submitted to some of the major Fortune 500 companies. This would bring to life a better idea of what they do and provide some real examples of their success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindsayt30 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC) Under Types of Designers in each of the professions in this field, I would put like a 1-2 sentence description of what these fields are responsible for are in addition to the hyperlink, just for a kind of "quick-fact" preview for readers who are unaware of what these professions entail. Lindsayt30 (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC) The Wikipedia entry for group 3 was very well written. The layout was efficient and easy to read. It also flowed very well. The facts that are provided are not only pertinent to the page, but they are interesting as well. This wikipedia page was well done by group 3. Tannerschwindt (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Very nice work on your draft, but there are some things that still need improvement (When replying to this message, please include  in your response, to ensure that I see your reply.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) It would be helpful if you had additional sources that could help establish the notability of your topic. Your major references you use - OBD's website and David Rice's HuffPo bio - aren't independent of the source. Reference #3 appears to be a reprinted press release, which suffers the same problem. The Core77 link is broken, and reference #4 goes to "myemail.constantcontact.com", which isn't a proper link. The Crain's link also looks promotional. What you need are high-quality source - national newspapers would be best, but even the main Detroit newspapers (Detroit News and the Detroit Free Press) would be great. And you need to make sure that the bulk of the content comes from sources that are independent of the subject of the article.
 * 2) References go after punctuation, not before. I fixed most of them, but please check to make sure I didn't miss any. Also section headers use sentence capitalization, not title capitalization. Only the first word should be capitalized.
 * 3) Try and be more succinct in your wording. For example:  has a lot of redundancy. Something like  is shorter and easier to read. Avoid giving "intentions" to objects: . Intentions are also hard to consider verifiable facts - you can say that the stated intent is to [do whatever]. But in reality, people are more concerned about what has actually been done. How does DesigNation achieve these intentions? What actions does it to do achieve these aims? That's what's interesting - and verifiable, since actions can be documented in a way that intentions can't.

Thank you Ian, I looked over the things you suggested and they are noted! I took a look at the references you fixed and you did not miss any! Thank you for your feed back! (User talk:miatocci)