User talk:Barnes writer

Welcome!
Hello, Barnes writer, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of D.K. Upshaw


A tag has been placed on D.K. Upshaw requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw where the page was deleted. I'm not sure if it was exactly the same as your draft, which had some major issues with it, but here are my notes based on the draft:
 * The draft had no sourcing, which is absolutely necessary for an article to establish notability as well as back up claims. I'm concerned that D. K. Upshaw would not pass notability guidelines on here, as I can't really see where she's received coverage in independent, reliable sources like newspapers or similar. Definitely review the brochure on creating biographies, as it goes over what is needed to establish notability in a bit more detail.
 * The writing needs to be more in-line with the style that Wikipedia uses, as the style is non-neutral and too casual. I recommend looking at other articles like Nina E. Allender as a guide.
 * You must not direct people to go to the artist's social media sites and follow them, as this will be seen as promotional. We can include a link to the artist's website in the external links section, but we cannot tell people to go there and check her work out.
 * I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
I like how you added some background and context surrounding how the act came to be. Equally as important as the act itself, is why it came to be, and I feel you do a good job showing that when you say that previously there was a wedge in states regarding whether they would be free or not. Outside of your sandbox edits, there is an intext citation, “(Finkelman 399),” that I believe needs to be converted to a wiki citation (I could be wrong here). Under the Effects heading there is a statement, “some slave-owners did not think it was strong enough,” there should be a citation here otherwise it’s just a baseless claim. If this is the act that created the “mother status”, that could be notable enough to have its own section. You could also consider, depending on how hard it is to find, adding a section regarding quotes and such of current politicians and what they though of the act when it was enacted. I like how you added some background and context surrounding how the act came to be. More important than the act itself is why it came to be, and I feel you do a good job showing that when you say that previously there was a wedge in states regarding whether they would be free or not. Outside of your sandbox edits, there is an intext citation, “(Finkelman 399),” that I believe needs to be converted to a wiki citation (I could be wrong here). Under the Effects heading there is a statement, “some slave-owners did not think it was strong enough,” there should be a citation here otherwise it’s just a baseless claim. If this is the act that created the “mother status”, that could be notable enough to have its own section. You could also consider, depending on how hard it is to find, adding a section regarding quotes and such of current politicians and what they though of the act when it was enacted. Sithcj (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
1.	What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? The effects section of this article is very impressive and gives a ton of great information! 2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement ? I suggest going back and checking the changes you made because right now it says you only contributed a word, so I think the information you had posted they flagged for some reason so maybe just check into that. 3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think just adding more information and maybe adding subheadings under the two headings of excerpts and efforts. This may help to organize it and make it a bit of an easier read for people who check out this page.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I liked their affect section and definitely will use that to help me with my own article.

5.	Looking at the lead by itself do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, you can definitely tell the importance of the topic

6.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, it does reflect the important information.

7.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, I think overall, it's a great lead.

8.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way? I think they're organized well maybe just adding in subheadings could help organize and make the page flow a little better.

9.	is each section's length equal to its importance to the articles subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off topic? I don't think any of the information is necessarily irrelevant I just think it could be organized a bit better either by adding subheadings or creating another section for some of the information. Overall, the information and length itself is good you guys have a lot of information so that's really great.

10.	Does the article reflect all perspectives represented in published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes, I think the article does reflect all perspectives For the most part because this is an act, I feel like it's kind of hard to find other relevant information.

11.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, it was very unbiased

12.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, I don't think I could guess the perspective of the author just by reading the article.

13.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel natural? No, I didn't see any that didn’t make it feel natural.

14.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unarmed groups or people? No, it doesn't.

15.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information remember, neutral doesn't mean “the best possible light” or “the worst, most critical light.” It means a clear reflection of various aspects of the topic. I think it does a good job not focusing on one or the other too much. Collinshannah78 (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)