User talk:Goud96/sandbox

--== Khaled's Peer review ==

This article is looking to be well structured with different things like where things belong or will belong in the live article. The research also includes more than 2 sources between the group members. As I read the article draft I edited some sentences due to grammar and or sentence issues. I noticed others, which should be revised by the group members responsible. There was some issues with the citation. It first has 1-8, but then a random '2', then a 9 and then a 1, when it should be 10 if numbered logically. I do not know what is going on their. This can be seen below the "June - This paragraph will go under the heading "Abolition of Slavery" in between the 2nd and 3rd existing paragraphs in the Wikipedia Article", and then below Ryan's section. Some sections were lacking much content other than what seemed like place holders, however I assume this will be expanded on.

Overall, this article has good sources, structure and plan. It needs to improve a bit on grammar, sentence structure, and citation. Khal94 (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Khal94 and all, on the issue of citation numbers, this is actually fine. The numbering for citations works a little differently on Wikipedia compared with a regular book. The numbers are assigned automatically by Wikipedia. The editors have no control over the numbers. When the same source is cited a second time, Wikipedia will not create a new number for the same source; instead, an earlier number will repeat, so it might look like the citations are out of order. So in this article, where you see number 2 appearing in multiple places, that just means that the same source from citation number 2 is cited multiple times in the article. --JBhistorian (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer review by Katmannoia
The information could use some more detail. For example, Colleen you should reference the name of the New York Times article since it is not the work you are citing. I thought we were not allowed to mention the Scarlet and Black project directly so I would omit the sentence about Rutgers trying to rectify its wrongs (Joseph's introduction). June's paragraph is really strong and gives great details about what type of labor slaves would have been doing in New Jersey as well as important dates in regards to abolition. Perhaps you could explain the manumission laws in New Jersey and how they worked according to gender and age. The article covers a good array of topics but it could use more refinement when it comes to grammar and organization. Katmannoia (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review By Sid
Reading the wiki page first, the opening seems to be a little broad and long, you could maybe shorten it down and add the details to a new section or add details to the existing chronological sections. Adding the slave population by percentage is a good statistic and the mentioning of the imprisonment of freed blacks is also a good detail to include, but could be put in a different section about loopholes and how free blacks were imprisoned despite their status. The sentence about NJ leaning towards being Confederate only seems to be supported by "many people believed", which seems vague, so maybe you could add a source there or specify where that belief arose from. In the Civil War section at the end of the third paragraph talks about African Americans that were free; seeing as how the Civil War section is lacking, you could add a bit about how the process of abolition started and how the African Americans came to be. I think the sentence about the decline of slavery in the 1830s is a good idea, but the Scarlet and Black sentence seems a little too recent and might be a conflict of interest, but I'm not sure. The section about female slaves seems very well developed and would be a good addition to the Wiki page as it doesn't have any parts mentioning the details on female slave preference. More detail on the gradual abolition law is a good idea too because the article only mentions it about two times and doesn't offer any additional details. Overall, the edits your team is making seem to be pretty good and would add a depth to the information that the page is currently lacking. Siddhantmehta (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Andrew
I like a lot of the information that is put into the page. I think some of the information is more elaborated on than others. I'm assuming this will be changed after this draft. But, all the information provided seems to be relevant and important to the topic. I like that there is reference to female slaves, a piece I think is usually looked over since we usually see slaves just called "slaves", without any reference to any other part of their being. I agree with Kathryn: I think there could be more elaboration about manumissions in New Jersey, considering it is a foundational part of the history of slavery in New Jersey. Overall, the group is clearly on the right track to creating a good contribution to this page. Andrew Nester 18:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewNester (talk • contribs)

Peer Review by Jenny
Overall, I think you guys have done a great job so far. Since my peers before me have added significant response towards the actual writing, I'd like to suggest additional sources/information you could potentially include. For example, in the Post American Revolution section, I think that you guys could go more in depth about Perth Amboy and its significance as the main port for slave trading - both when people were taken from Africa, and then forced movement of people when only inter-state slave trade was permitted. I think that a focus on Perth Amboy is vital to the history of slavery in New Jersey. The article lacks a clear understanding of Perth Amboy's significance. On Perth Amboy's Wikipedia site, slavery is not mentioned once, which is concerning. I also saw you used one of James Gigatino's books, which is great. He also wrote the following book which could be helpful for your page:

1) GIGANTINO, JAMES J. ""The Whole North Is Not Abolitionized": Slavery's Slow Death in New Jersey, 1830–1860." Journal of the Early Republic 34, no. 3 (2014): 411-37. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24486906.

Best of luck, great job so far!

Jennyschneider (talk) 01:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)Jenny

Dante's Peer Review
Glad you're expanding the narrative of the slave trade, especially regarding what was going on with female vs. male slaves. However, I'd stay away from adding so much specific information about New Brunswick and focus more on the state as a whole, while using those examples as sources to bolster the credibility of the facts we're putting up here. Linuxman97 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Adam's Peer Review
Certain parts such as the introduction could use a little more detail. I like the use of percentages they give more of a macro understanding to the information presented. Possibly use some more specific information such as some names of people just to have examples to go along with the information. I agree with pretty much all of the reviews before me and I feel like it is a very strong start, just a little more elaboration in specific sections can take this to a new level. Asof100 (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2018 (UTC)