User talk:HarrisonGale84/Pierre Cholenec

HI GARRISON - GREAT WORK ON THIS. WITH A DRAFT THIS COMPLETE, YOU WILL HAVE GREAT ENTRY SOON. I CAN SEE THAT YOUR PEER REVIEWER DID A GOOD JOB AND HAS SOME USEFUL ADVICE, SO I AM HAPPY TO SEE THAT. SO, YOU HAVE ALL THE WIKIPEDIA STUFF FIGURED OUT AND YOU HAVE THE SECTIONS WORKED OUT. YOU HAVE THE TONE ABOUT RIGHT IN TERMS OF HOW TO WRITE FOR AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. THE NEXT STEP IS TO FILL IN SOME MORE IN SOME OF THE LATER SECTIONS BUT ALSO TO GIVE YOUR READER SOME MORE BACKGROUND OF BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT NEW FRANCE AND MISSIONARIES. WHY ARE THEY THERE AND WHAT IS THEIR GOAL? BECAUSE ST. CATHERINE IS LIKELY THE THING THAT WILL DRAW MOST READERS INTO YOUR STORY, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO SAY MORE ABOUT THAT AT THE START.

THEN YOU STILL NEED SOME MORE SOURCES, WHICH I REALIZE IS CHALLENGING WITHOUT A LIBRARY. HOWEVER, MOST ACADEMIC JOURNALS ARE ONLINE AND WE HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE. SO FOCUS ON SOME ARTICLES. THINK ABOUT SOME KEYWORDS TO SEARCH FOR ON THE OU LIBRARY SITE BEYOND CHOLENEC'S NAME. YOU CAN USE GREER'S WORK AND HIS BIBLIOGRAPHY TO GET STARTED, BUT THERE IS NEWER STUFF ABOUT NATIVE CATHOLICS AND MISSIONS.

FINALLY, YOU NEED TO WORK ON IMAGES - SO MAYBE SOME MAPS OR A PICTURE OF THE COVER OF HIS BOOK ABOUT KATERI?

LET ME KNOW IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AND IF I CAN HELP. I'VE PUT A CHECKLIST BELOW TO HELP YOU THINK THROUGH THE FINAL VERSION OF THE ARTICLE.

ANNE HYDE

LEAD: Does your lead summarize the entire article by briefly covering all important aspects of the topic? Does it work as an outline for the whole article?

First sentence: does it serve as a definition of the article topic, with the topic itself — be it a person, place, thing, idea or concept — in bold, and a brief description that puts it into context.

(Example: Anna Anderson (c. 16 December 1896 – 12 February 1984) was the best known of several impostors who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia.)

BODY: Fact-based, not persuasive writing. The article is a description of the information you can find about a topic, based on good sources.

Did you write in your own words? Check that the article doesn’t contain excessive quotations, or copy any sources, even if you’ve given them credit.

Does the article let the reader decide for themselves? Avoid persuasive language? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral?

Did you proofread? Basic grammar and spelling are correct? Complete sentences? Remove first-person (“I/we”) or second-person (“you”) writing.

Formal tone and simple language? No technical language or jargon? Check that you’ve explained acronyms and jargon in simple English the first time you use them.

Is your formatting consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? No bullet-pointed lists or too many headings in your article.

SOURCES: Is every claim cited to a reliable source?

Are there unsourced statements? Are there enough sources

Are the sources reliable and authoritative. Does each source have citations – footnotes, bibliography, etc.

Good sources include textbooks or academic journals. Don’t cite blog posts.

Afh1858 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)