User talk:Aereynacastro

Peer review of National LGBTQ Wall of Honor
First off, it looks like someone reverted your changes to the article. I'm reading through your version now, so maybe my comments will help you understand why they did so. You don't have to revert back to your version (in fact, you're not supposed to "edit war" with this person). But you are welcome to post on the article talk page requesting that this person engage with you about why they are reverting your changes. In the meantime...

Lead
One thing your version did was to delete the article's lead section. The article must have a lead, which should do several things:


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

The lead of the article (before you edited it) is actually pretty good. You would do well, should you try to reinstate your changes, to leave the lead alone. (Add it to your sandbox version if you choose to have me grade that instead.)

Content
The information you found mostly pertains to the history of the wall. Why not add a new section (above Nominations) and call it History? Add your information there.

The information on the Stonewall Inn could be pared down quite a bit. You need to focus it on the hall of fame -- say enough about the Stonewall Inn and why it was selected for the site, but don't go into extraneous detail. The Inn does not need its own section, for instance. Instead, it needs two or three sentences in the history section to justify why the people decided to put the hall of fame there. Then add a sentence or two about the Stonewall Riots. I think the reason why our edits got removed is because they went off topic, diverting too much from the hall of fame. The Inn and the Riots are good context, but they aren't the main thrust of the article.

The public opinion paragraph is good, but it's currently unsourced. That's why it was removed. You need to cite sources for everything you add.

Tone and Balance
This is fine, although the long list of nominees is a no-no on Wikipedia.

Sources and References
Another reason your edits were removed is because much of what you added did not cite sources. For instance, your paragraph beginning "The International Imperial Courts" cites no source.

Organization
See my comment above.

Images and Media
More images is always good.

Overall impressions
Your version of the article needs some more work. You found some good information (although not very much). The trick is to integrate it in a way that doesn't take the focus away from the wall itself. If you are able to integrate things better (and follow my instructions above), this is a B effort. An A would require a lot more research, but it's probably too late to do that. Abukun (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)