User talk:Anthonycsiracusa/sandbox

I like the reorganization! It's great to see more on the Alpha club as well as smaller but important edits like "manumitted following the Emancipation Proclamation" instead of "freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. I think there are a couple parts that could still use citations or copyedits, but I suspect that might be because you're still working on them or they are copied from the original article. For example, I assume "Willis controversy" should be "Willard controversy," and that the Alpha club is another subheading? Regarding the Willard controversy, could you clarify and give more background here: "In the course of their lectures in Britain"? In general, I'm glad this section on the Wells-Willard controversy is being expanded--it can offer an interesting juxtaposition to the description of the dispute on Willard's page--but I do think it would benefit from additional details. --Raaboyl (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I like the reorganization too. It provides a much more precise path for the reader. Looks like you are still deciding on how to handle the introduction? And will there be a so-called "lede" as well as the introduction? I agree with Raabyoy1's comments that there are copyedits that will need to be made throughout, including use of inline citations using page numbers...which seems sort of weird? If you'd like more input on copyedits let me know--I wasn't sure if that was in our purview as "peer reviewers". I think the Alpha Suffrage Club heading makes sense. You could expand and say something like The Alpha Suffrage Club and the 1913 March on Washington (or whatever it may be called in Wikipedia, linking the latter) simply because that march is so well known. BonnieEllenBurns (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2018 (UTC)BonnieEllenBurns

This is quite an achievement. The new version provides much more detail. The addition of subheadings to break up the Early Career section and to signify a new event or accomplishment make the entire article easier to read and scan for the user while pushing the reader further by following the sequence of events and facts closely. I too feel that it's difficult to provide much direction when we know you are in the middle of writing, editing and formatting this lengthy article. One suggestion might be regarding quotes and minor spelling/grammar errors. Under the subheading for The Lynching at the Curve in Memphis there is a quote that has a misspelling (aslpeep instead of asleep) but that could be intentional if written that way by the news writer at Memphis Appeal Avalanche. Also the quote given by Moss before his death-seems to follow the Wikipedia rule about verifiable attribution as long as it's noted where it came from; news article. Just thought it would be a good reminder to check all the quotes and the attribution in the text or references but I realize this might already be on your To Do list.Carol7288 (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Cassandra's review
Lead The lead is quite long and detailed. I know Wikipedia's structure guidelines says to limit it to four paragraphs, which you have done, but this seems far too lengthy to me... I wouldn't want a casual reader to abandon the introduction to such an important figure because of the length. Is there a way to incorporate much of this information in the body of the article, and to substantially trim the lead so as not to alienate potential readers? (For example, you certainly don't need information about her eulogy in the intro...)

Structure and Balance Origins of the Anti-Lynching Campaign There is a lot of good information here, but I wanted to read more about Wells's response. Would it be possible to condense the information on the Peoples Grocery events (after all, there is a full page dedicated to it that readers can click on), and expand on Wells's reaction (that is, what compelled her to write Southern Horrors)? For example, instead of quoting the Memphis Appeal-Avalance, could you quote Wells herself?

Southern Horrors To this end, I'll be excited to see how you write about Southern Horrors, when you get to that section!

Investigative Journalism Have you done away with the Investigative Journalism section? I thought it was quite good and important in the original article. I hope it finds a place in the final revisions.  Suffrage I think this section could include a bit more general context about tensions surrounding African Americans and suffrage (with links) - and maybe hint at the aftermath of her campaign.

Neutrality and Sources You've mentioned in class that neutrality was a significant issue in the original article, and I applaud your efforts at combating this! There are some sections, however, that need more thorough citation, and this will go a long way towards keeping the article as neutral as possible. The section on "Early career and education," for example, cites nothing at all, and this is very problematic - though I am assuming that citations will be added as you do more editing.

There is also a very heavy reliance on the Paula Giddings book, even though there is an abundance of secondary materials to choose from... perhaps varying the secondary source base in subsequent revisions would be worthwhile. And I didn't see Southern Horrors referenced at all...

Jaicasn (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)