User talk:Cmccandl/sandbox

Collin, could you be a little clearer about the article you are reviewing? Remember that I can only grade and engage with the material you present to me.

Collin,

This is a very good first draft. You have developed a strong foundation and have presented a solid understanding of your article's material. There is lots of detail, but certainly room to expand. A strong draft includes the most important information and strong detail; yours presented both. There are certainly improvements to be made, but it is a great draft overall. From what I can tell, you are adding a section onto a pre-existing article, which is also what I am doing for mine. This is a slightly different task than writing a new article, because the structure is unique. The "lead section", for example, is different, because it is not a lead for the entire article, but rather for your section. It does not have a special or visually noticeable spot (unlike the lead for the full article), but it is still important to have one as your first paragraph. You gave some good background information, but there are areas where it feels like your article has no context. The body is good and has detailed information, with room for further research to expand on that information. The article draft gives a solid overview of prohibition and post-prohibition laws in Canada.

The lead of your article is good, but can use more specificity. The first sentence gives important context to why Canada participated in prohibition: excellent work. It gives concise information about when the different provinces receded prohibition. It gives important background information to the reader, but there are times throughout the rest of your article where context that has not been give would be helpful. What is the Ontario Teperance Act? The BLC's job is vaguely described, and so I do not fully understand their importance to your article. Later in the second paragraph, you give a better description, so the detailed information is there, but I would recommend that you switch some of it around, so the context is clearer. The purpose of "the lead" is to provide context and a basic understanding of the article below. You provide detailed context and a basic understanding for some things, but not all. It is important that after reading your first one or two paragraphs, the reader has a solid understanding of your article as a whole.

The structure of the article is good. It seems like the first two paragraphs are overview, and then the rest goes chronologically. For organisational purposes, I would recommend revising the final paragraph that includes the legislation from 1906 and 1909. This makes the chronology of your events slightly confusing. The information is sound, and the chronological stages of public drinking in Canada was generally understandable (again consider the legislation from 1906 and 1909). Though detailed, there is a lot you can do with this article for your final draft. Your detail thus far is more of an overview rather than pinpointed. One thing that popped out at me was the moral disagreement. It would be very interesting to delve deeper into the arguments of each side, and what actions they did (if any) as a result of their ideologies. Perhaps another interesting avenue would be alcohol in different areas of Canada. For example, distilleries and breweries in Newfoundland, or the origin of Steam-whistle in Toronto. These would help flesh out your article so the detail is more pinpointed.

The picture is a wonderful addition to your draft. It relates directly to your topic, and works as an interesting written (visual picture) primary source. It gives the reader something else to look at and by having writing on it, acts as a support to the information your article gives. Awesome!

The balance of your article is difficult to pinpoint because there is only one section. That section is reasonably balanced. The different periods across your span of history have equal amounts of information. With the inclusion of more specific detail, the balance will hopefully continue. The objectivity is excellent. If you decide to look farther into the moral debate you mentioned at the beginning of paragraph 3, it is crucial that here in particular you are as objective as possible. It is difficult to remain objective while explaining two sides of a contentious debate. It is important that the sources for this debate try to be objective too. So far, by briefly explaining the reasoning of either side and the arguments of historians, you have remained very objective (considering it is impossible for anyone to ever be truly objective). You currently have two sources: one journal article and one newspaper article. These are good sources, and you have used them well. You should review that the sentences in your draft that need citations have them. The syllabus also says that you need three sources (two articles and one book) so just make sure that you have your final source for the final draft.

Overall, this is an excellent first draft of an article. It hits all the criteria for Wikipedia. It is a summation of the most important information. It has a good framework and solid overview detail. The goal moving forward is to add more specific detail to expand on your topic. Your lead was detailed, and gave some good context and understanding, but more clarity is needed. It felt like the article delved right into the material without orienting the reader with context. Your body was strong too, but specificity on certain topics and themes you brought up should be expanded upon. This article is an interesting addition to Wikipedia's articles about Canadian history (alcohol is always an interesting topic). I would also recommend you look into course themes to which your topic can relate. I look forward to your final product!! Well done, Collin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Kinghan (talk • contribs) 22:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Collin,

Your article provides a very detailed history of prohibition and the legislation passed to control liquor in Canada. However, your article is presented in one large paragraph and fails to divide the information into different sections. I feel as though your addition is large enough to be divided into various subheadings: You could divide the BLC, LCA(I) and LCA(II) into separate sections ordered chronologically, for example. Also, I believe your article lacks sufficient citations; you have a plethora of information which is not referenced to many sources, but only two. This indicates a limited viewpoint in your article. You may also want to consider including more hyperlinks, given that your article is very terminology heavy. This may ease the reading and understanding experience for viewers. I believe your addition will strongly benefit this article, given its current lack of length and content. However, I believe you should consider the issues I noted above, as they may improve the reliability and structure of your article.

Pridenkom (talk) 08:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

'''This is excellent feedback, Patrick and Pride! Collin, you would be wise to heed their advice. Think about breaking this article down into sections or, perhaps even better, consider how your research can rework the original article on the Ontario Temperance Act. Remember that you do not want to overwrite everything that other Wikipedians have already done. Tpcanoe (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)'''