User talk:Gloriasiyoungkoo

Welcome!
Hello, Gloriasiyoungkoo, 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) 17:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review for "Illinois Confederation" Article
Hi Gloria! I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article on the Illinois Confederation, and found it to be quite strong. Here are some examples of what your article does really well:
 * 1) The Lead section as a whole is very succinct and, although an informative overview of the article's contents, is brief and to-the-point.
 * 2) I really enjoyed the "Culture" section, and found the information covered here to be very interesting and well-written. I think this section is one of the strongest areas of content of your article, and is an intensive expansion on the scant amount of information covered in the original article on the culture of the Illinois Confederation.
 * 3) I also really enjoyed the new "Sustenance" and "Government" sections. The information provided here was very interesting and provides detailed information regarding how indigenous peoples govern and live amongst one another. These sections make the article as a whole much stronger in comparison to the original article, as it provides new perspectives of the indigenous way of life.

In regards to areas of improvement, here are some examples of how I think this article could be made even stronger:
 * 1) Although I find the lead as a whole to be very strong, I think the first sentence could be rewritten so as to more properly define what is exactly the Illinois Confederation. For example, I would rewrite it so that, keeping the information that is present, it also includes the fact that the Illinois Confederation was a group of 12-13 tribes, which comes in your second sentence. I think this would just make the lead a little bit more clear as it would give the reader a better understanding as to what the Illinois Confederation is.
 * 2) The "Name" section could be improved or have its information consolidated under another section. For example, the WikiProject on Ethnic Groups provides a sample template for how to structure articles when covering groups of people. According to this template, the "Language" subsection should fall under the "Culture" section. In following this structure, I think you should just have the "Name" section include solely the information that is contained in the "Origins" subsection, and then move the information in the "Language" subsection under "Culture." In addition, regarding the "Language" subsection, I think the information could be consolidated to be a little less wordy. For example, the first paragraph states "Miami and Illinois are dialects of the same Algonquian language, spoken in Indiana and later Oklahoma," while the second paragraph states "Both the Miami and Illinois are dialects of the Algonquian (or Algonkian) language." These two paragraphs restate more-or-less the same information. I think if you consolidate the two paragraphs, it could be much stronger!
 * 3) Additionally, there is a good amount of uncited factual information. For example, the entirety of the information under the "Interactions with Europeans" subsection is uncited except for the last sentence. I'm assuming that your intentions were that the citation at the end was supposed to be attributed to the entire subsection, but I believe you still have to include a citation after every statement of fact, even if it's the same source.
 * 4) There are some instances where the article is not entirely neutral. For example, under the "History" section, you state "which we recalled previously in this column." Make sure to omit the "we" as first-person narrative is not allowed in Wikipedia articles (see this Wikipedia Manual). I would actually remove that clause as it also seems like it's synthesizing information, and the sentence still stands without it.
 * 5) In regard to sources, I would try and look to see if there are any journal sources that could provide you with information regarding the topic. I notice that many of the sources come from http://www.illinoisstatemuseum.org/, which seems reliable given that it is part of a state governmental agency. However, I think journal articles/books could provide a lot more detailed and reliable information, and thus the article could be less susceptible to opposition when you update it.

Overall, this is a very strong article! Good job! Peterpietri (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional peer review
There's a lot of great content here, carefully structured and laid out. Peter has given you some useful feedback above, so I'll be brief.

My major concern about this article is the small number of sources and the fact that some rank fairly low on the quality of sourcing as laid out on WP:RS. I would recommend seeing what you can extract from these sources:
 * This is a book chapter available online at the Vanderbilt library:
 * This is a book chapter available online at the Vanderbilt library:
 * This is a book chapter available online at the Vanderbilt library:

Regarding the lead, it needs to outline the full sweep of Illinois/Illini history, through to the present.--Carwil (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Illinois Confederation
Hello! Your submission of Illinois Confederation at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your recent edits. There remain concerns about the reliability of some of the sources that have been used. Please take a look at your nomination's entry; let us know as soon as possible whether you think you'll be able to address these concerns. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)