User talk:Futuroabogado3511/sandbox

neutrality of language, notability, structure
Neutrality of language could be better, personally I would try and sound more neutral, the structure so far is not bad I would just clarify what part of the 20th century you're speaking on. Your Grammer is good, way to find evidence. RutgersMark (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Timeline
The North Camden Civic Association - When was this organization founded? This is a great fact to have in here and I think it really makes a bold statement on how Camden struggled to maintain independence. I'd like to know more about the historical context of the fact. When did this happen? When did the organization come to be, who was leading it, what did they do? I think adding in dates and a sentence or two of the human interaction here would make this a truly impactful paragraph. Great fact finding! Harleiquill (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes!
The Concerned Citizens of North Camden became a community advocacy organization in December of 1978. The group was focused improving North Camden by protesting for "better housing, cleaner streets, and more jobs; to unify the community across lines of race and national origin..." In April of 1979, 50 members of Concerned Citizens of North Camden protested a city council meeting because they believed that the city had "demonstrated - This feels like you haven't finished the paragraph here, but I really want to know more about this, now! Good use of citations here. Harleiquill (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Notability
In terms of notability, I don’t think you could have picked a better topic. The history of activist groups in Camden is almost synonymous with the history of Camden itself, and it absolutely meets the criteria of being relevant for a general audience. That being said, I do wonder to what degree different groups in the city’s history deserve to hold the spotlight over each other. For example, if there were multiple groups in Camden that all worked on issues related to the environment, how would you determine which one warrants the most writing about? If there are organizations that are known for singular large achievements as opposed to ones which had a long history of enacting small change, which one would you spend more time on for your research? Additionally, how are you ensuring that you are getting a broad picture of activism in the city of Camden and not focusing on a handful of organizations that, while helpful to include, do not represent the overall spirit of activism in the area over the course of the 20th century?

This is obviously more of a research methodology issue than it is one of writing and composition, but I believe it to be one of the most difficult challenges you might face in this project. I suggest you take some time to fully map out all of the activism groups you plan on mentioning in your article and subject them to some form of filtering or organization to ensure that you are offering the most notable information possible. One way I could see you doing this is by outlining a number of activist causes and finding one or two groups concerned with each of them that you then go more in depth on. This is something that I believe will also help the overall structure of your article. Vincenzo Johnson (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Structure
I am personally very happy as a reader with the way you have chosen to structure your writing. It seems that you have found yourself in a cyclical structure which mentions each organization's origins, their intended goals, and the outcomes of their efforts respectively. In terms of the larger structure, I could see you going cause by cause and listing some of the most important groups associated with each of them, but I could appreciate a chronological approach that lists the most important groups for each time period as well. In other words, you have two good options for structuring your article:


 * 1) Create sub-headings for each activist cause and then chronologically list all of the important organizations within those causes that have concerned themselves with the issue.
 * 2) Go strictly chronologically and list the most important activist organizations as they emerged historically

Aside from the internal structure of your writing, I am also curious to see how you plan to work this all into the rest of the Camden page. It seems like this information is historical in nature, but I am also convinced that this could find its way into the “Culture” section. Additionally, there is a possibility that this could all fall under a newly created section titled “Activism” or as a sub-heading with the same title in the “Culture” section. Vincenzo Johnson (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality of Language
We had mentioned this in our initial discussion of your work, but it is still absolutely true that this topic is one that you will have a hard time writing about from a non-biased perspective. One thing that I believe you have done well to circumvent this is to take the approach of simply reporting the history of each of the activist groups and pulling direct quotes from source texts in order to avoid saying anything polarizing yourself as a writer. That being said, there was one sentence in the beginning of your article which struck me as one of the “according to who?” moments we have talked about in class:

“Throughout the 20th century, Camden was home to many organizations that were focused on improving the lives of Camden citizens.”

Consider writing something a bit more specific in this case such as:

“Throughout the 20th century, Camden was home to many organizations which had as their mission the improvement of the lives of Camden citizens.”

This second way of writing it will allow you a bit more leniency in terms of your writing and will help prevent a conversation questioning if all of these organizations truly were focused on improving the lives of Camden citizens. This way, all you are saying is that these organizations stated themselves that their missions were to improve the lives of Camden’s citizens. Vincenzo Johnson (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Citations/Research
I believe you’ve done a great job at picking out relevant and informative sources on your topic. Your use of newspaper articles opens you up to biased and often one-sided language, but you do a great job of navigating that obstacle. On the other hand, your use of documents written by the activist groups you mention themselves is a great way of conveying the messages and goals of these groups in a way that is backed up by historical fact. That being said, I feel that there are many traps here in terms of veering off into original research. It is so hard to fight the urge to piece together different facts and put sources in conversation with each other because it is something that we are so accustomed to, but I feel that the succinctness that you have brought to your writing cuts out some of the chances there are of that happening. All in all, I’d say things are looking good on this end of things! Vincenzo Johnson (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Grammar
The grammar in your work so far has been great. It is always the case that drafts tend to have a lot of typos and redundancies, but from what I’ve seen you have been doing a good job of revising things and tightening up your work. The second sentence of your article seems to be missing a word or two, and the second sentence of the last paragraph also has the same issue. Other than that, I think it looks good! Vincenzo Johnson (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Paul Robeson
I love your paragraph about the Black Student Unity Movement of Rutgers Camden. I love that you have neutral language here, he use of dates to help determine the timeline, and the event that defined their start. I love that you included when their demands were finally met - which I hope stands to shock readers without being emotionally loaded. "They did this in 1969. but It was fixed in 1991." Bold, impactful writing well within neutrality.

As I mentioned to you, I believe a photo of the painting of Robeson from the library (turn right at the security desk, it's on the wall just to the left before the study areas) would be an absolutely amazing resource to add here. Harleiquill (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hyphenations
"Puerto Rican Unity for Progress is a multi service, community based organization that is located in Camden and serves the Hispanic community who reside in the city."

- multiservice is one word, no matter what the grammar programs say. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multiservice (my sarcasm is not for you, it is for the AI grammar checker!)

- community-based should be hyphenated. Harleiquill (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation?
"The organization was established in 1976 and opened its physical location at 437 Broadway Street in Camden in June 1978."

I would suggest adding a citation here. Even if it's the same citation as the next sentence, the fact that there's a quotation in the next sentence makes it seem like that citation is specifically for that quote. Harleiquill (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)