User talk:Btymoniewicz

Welcome!
Hello, Btymoniewicz, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Brooke, I'm just going to give some overall comments instead of follow every point from the peer review outline, but so far great job on all your additions! A few things I think would be helpful for your article is to try to find a picture of your person if there is one. Also, I see Pickens has two autobiographies, but the biography section of the article is quite brief, and I see you are focusing a lot of your additions to providing descriptions of Pickens works, which is great, but I wonder if the most important information you should focus on is a biography of him. I think your sections that you did write are strong, but there are some grammar mistakes so I would just closely reread over your work. For example, these sentences: "This brings forth progress in the African government and people. Moreover, in the first few years, that African Americans in the United States has received some freedoms, they have not received the outright equality that they deserve due to their respectable contributions to American society." do not really make sense or flow to me. The first sentence feels incomplete and the tense does not seem right, is it supposed to say brought instead of brings? Maybe I am just misinterpreting things. Anyways, keep up the good work! Samantha Velazquez (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes the Lead is sets up the content in the paper very nicely. Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? The intro sentence is both concise and to the point. Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Though it is concise, i wish the books were more talked about in depth later on. Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? no Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? concise Lead evaluation The lead is strong and to the point. If anything maybe add some sentences about the other things talking about (early life, adulthood etc) Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes the content adds to the strength of the topic. Is the content added up-to-date? Yes it seems up to date. Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? no Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes William teaches about the underrepresented populations and it is highlighted in the article. Content evaluation The content is strong and describes Williams story well. An addition of some ties into it will make the article extremely strong. Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? no all are unbaised and factual. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? I think the wording now keeps it straight and to the point. Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No the statements are true and to the point, not working towards persuading one towards an opinion. Tone and balance evaluation The tone and balance are strong and follow the story of his life well. Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes the new sources seem to be strong Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? they are through for each individual purpose Are the sources current? There are some older but also some very current sources giving hte article strength. Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Check a few links. Do they work? yes Sources and references evaluation Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content seems to be coming together but all great points. Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? I couldnt find any grammar or spelling errors. Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? It definitely can be separated into more subsections but all the main ideas are there and well executed. Organization evaluation Images and Media Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media N/A Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Are images well-captioned? Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above. Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? there is a wide list of both old and new sources tying it together. Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? yes Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes New Article Evaluation Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? I think the content for sure has helped alot. What are the strengths of the content added? The wide amount of information and topics to talk about give a strong foundation for the article. How can the content added be improved? I think by working on the set up and breaking it up you will be able to hone in on individual facts that will add to the strength of the article as well as the readers experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachcorliss (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Lesbian Contradiction moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Lesbian Contradiction, is not suitable as written to remain published. There are several issues: it is not written in a neutral tone, the sourcing needs improvement, and notability needs to be established. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  Onel 5969  TT me 12:09, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Lesbian Contradiction


Hello, Btymoniewicz. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Lesbian Contradiction".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit  23:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)