User:Jeongseok victor Lee/Center for Studies of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities Museum

Victor
Wow you guys are doing amazing!!! I hope my comments could make your entry better. First, It would be better off if you bring the title "The Centre for studies of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities" up, above the Contents box. Second, The third sentence of "The Centre for studies of the Holocaust and Religious Minorities" section, starting with "The museum" is almost the same as what its homepage says regarding. The sentence seemingly needs more adjustment. Third, for "Educational Partners" section, I can clearly see that you guys invested so much time to summarise the each partners. But, it tends to have too much information relative to overall information about the museum itself. I think you can either minimise the section or maximise general information about the museum. Please leave acrimonious comments for our groups sandbox, too. I have a question. How can you guys put a picture of the museum on your sandbox?Jeongseok victor Lee (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Alaura
Thanks victor, very helpful feedback! particularly about information balancing. User:Alaura HopperAlaura Hopper (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Alaura Hopper

Chris
This is a very good draft with plenty of information about your subject! Overall, the information given is useful and relevant. I would suggest moving most of the information under "General information" into the infobox in the upper right corner of your entry. Also, I would consider revising the "Library" section. I was confused about what the "What the Documents Tell Us project" was. I am also not sure how it fits under Library. One more small suggestion would be to cite your sources after information is given in the text rather than on the headings. Once again, this article is very informative and is looking great so far. Good job! ChrispyBiscuit (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback Chris. "The What the documents tell us project" used resources from the library to compile their report. There is more information on that now. Appreciate the feedback!Mikhailp0 (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris, good tip on citing sources. Alaura Hopper (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Alaura HopperAlaura Hopper (talk) 02:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Taylor
Like my colleagues said above this is a great start to your Wikipedia entry with lots of useful information. I think your layout is well organized and easy to follow. I think you have good sources as well that back your information so well done there. As Chris said above you should cite your sources after the information so the reader knows exactly what is cited. I think if you add a visual to your page it will really draw the reader in and give them a visual perspective. Other than that I like your post and can't wait to see the final product. Keep up the good work!! User Talk Taylor Meeker (talk) 1:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the feedback Taylor, I will be sure to remind the rest of the group to look at their citations.Mikhailp0 (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Alex
Hi! So to add a little from the other feedback, I think you generally have all of the information needed, I would only offer a few changes to the structure.

First off, I was with Victor and a little confused about the infobox placement, but it looks to me like your "level-1" headline is actually the title of the article since the real headline is the sandbox title, then every subsequent section title is one level lower than intended. When you put the contents into the actual article, the title hierarchy should probably correct itself so it's not a huge deal. (If that doesn't make any sense, it's okay because it's not super relevant).

What caught my attention the most was the "general information" section. I think the idea is absolutely brilliant and useful, but I'm not sure you actually you need any of that information in your article. (The address is definitely necessary, so I think you can put that in the location section of your infobox at the top.) One thing Wikipedia is usually really picky about is not having articles that appear like advertisements or as extensions of the entity they're about. While admission costs, contact information and hours are informative, it's information that should be on the museum to post on their website as opposed to on their Wikipedia article. One reason I understand is because that sort of information is fluid and probably changes fairly often, and conflict-of-interest rules would prohibit the museum from editing the Wikipedia article to update the information on their own, forcing them to rely on random authors to update the article when needed (which isn't totally ideal). One common solution I'm aware of is an "External links" section at the bottom, where you can add a link that goes to the museum website to make it easier for article readers to find the information without searching too hard.

Along slightly similar lines, I would just be careful in the "Educational partners" section with some of the wording in regards to neutrality. Under the Living History Forum the last sentence says "The Living History Forum is an important Swedish agency that is dedicated to international networking, education, and societal progress." While it's probably very true, someone could argue the word "important" negates the objectivity of a section. Just making up a possible replacement without much research, I think something like "The Living History Forum is a public Swedish agency that states its responsibilities as public outreach, education advancement and advocation of societal progress" would ease concerns. I think the easiest way to deal with that is to say "according to random_entity they push societal progress, social justice, etc." so there's a separate voice stating that rather than neutral Wikipedia.

Overall those are my two biggest feedback areas, just a little analysis on whether general information is necessary and ensuring none of your words come across as bias. There's some grammatical things and weird quirks with references, but for the sake of your content and direction they're very minor at this point. I think it's a very interesting topic and definitely worthy of the article you're crafting. Nice work! WalkInCloset (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Alex for so much helpful feedback, particularly on using biased wording, that was very informative and effective.Alaura Hopper (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Alaura HopperAlaura Hopper (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your draft. A few things that need fixing
 * Wikipedia articles don't use "The" as part of article titles unless it's actually part of the name of the thing - a book title, for example. If you look at the website, it doesn't use "The" in the logo at the top left, so it's pretty clear that it's not part of the name. The word "The" should also be left out of section headers.
 * Reference should be in the article text, not in the section headers.
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on high-quality reliable sources that are independent on the subject of the article. All of your sources are from the museum's website. You need independent sources.
 * Don't include stuff like opening hours. People shouldn't come to Wikipedia for that kind of information, since it so easily falls out of date. Provide a link to the website, where people can find up-to-date information. (When replying to this message, please include  in your response, to ensure that I see your reply.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ian for the awesome feedback! Alaura Hopper (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Alaura HopperAlaura Hopper (talk) 02:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)