User talk:Elliottci/sandbox

1. What does the article do well? Be specific.

You provide an extensive amount of background about A. F. Monroe and his upbringing, his father, and family. I also really like the fact that you included a media coverage and a contemporary commentary section!

2. What changes could be made. How would that improve the article. Be specific!

Right now, it is unclear where you got any of your information from. You need to specify by using references and notes.

Currently, you need to work on creating a more comprehensive lead section as well. You only have one sentence; you should work to add the most important details from the event to your lead section so the reader understands the gist of the entire article just from reading your lead.

I feel like some of your language could be borrowed from the articles or sources you read (possibly http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ky/state/counties/pendleton/historical/monroelynching.htm? I found this is a google search). Some of your phrasing just seems out of place. I recommend doing a better job paraphrasing so your article complies with the Wikipedia plagiarism standards.

I also think you have very long paragraphs that can be split so they seem approachable and readable, especially in your riots and response section.

3. Single most important thing the author could do to improve the article.

You need to make sure you don't use borrowed language (adjust paraphrases to comply with Wikipedia's plagiarism module) and cite when appropriate.

4. What from this article is valuable that you could include in your own draft.

I would like to add scholarly commentary to the end of my article like you have.

Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Coffmanse (talk) 04:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Your article is well organized and contextual to your topic. I think the content is well sought out. 2. I think you should try to keep a neutral tone in your word choice. Such as "his privileged life" ect. Or if you are going to use that language have some evidence to back it up. Also the syntax of your capitalized aftermath section was stressing me out. 3. I think you can take out your opinion in your writing. 4. I think your article is good. I need to have better information in my article and reading yours has definitely helped me! Thank you! Delucamj (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)May

Peer Review
1. I really liked the writing style of your article. It flowed really well and it was interesting to read. It almost feels narrative which is more interesting to read.

2. One specific change you could make is put the information about the events immediately before the lynching in their own subsection. That would probably be most of the information in the third paragraph of the "background" section. You also need to add footnotes/notes/citations. The last thing is that there are some sections that have awkward wording or grammar, so I would just say reread those and proofread for more specific little changes.

3. The adding citations is probably the most important part because citations are essential and without them your article won't be seen as reliable by other people.

4. I would like to make my writing style more like yours, where the information is still there but it's interesting to read as well. 164.68.60.167 (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

(PS this is Emily but I didn't realize I wasn't logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.68.60.167 (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)