User talk:I6159195

Feedback on your article
Hello I6159195, Thank you for writing your article in your sandbox! I have read the article and would like to give some feedback to improve your article to Wikipedia standards and customs. While your tutor will judge it content wise, I will look if it meets the quality standards we have on Wikipedia. I standard look for a series of subjects that need improvement or are okay. I hope you can implement this feedback to your sandbox article before your final version. Thanks! Romaine (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Intro sentence: okay
 * Links: A good start, but some more keywords need a link to another Wikipedia article, like "Congregationalist".
 * Headers: To me the headers are somewhat confusing. Usually an article starts with the context, then followed by the contents, and then the reception.
 * References: Every paragraph and every two/three sentences should have a reference, certainly on the end of a paragraph. In the content section (and only there) I think a large number of references can be merged together saying it can be found in chapter .. or pages merged together like 1-50 for example. Otherwise other editors get a wrong impression as it seems a long list of references, but basically only one source is used.
 * Context/timeframe: In this section I expect to read about what has led to the existence of the book and the timeframe in what the book was written, not about the book itself. In other words, what you have written in the context section can be in your article, but should not be part of the context section.
 * How was the book received: This section I expect to read about how the book was received, what people thought of it, how it was used, etc. "Reception of the author" seems a bit weird to me: the article is about the book, not about the author, so this header is not right to me. However you can describe what happened to the author after he published the book, but please describe it in relationship to the book. This section should not be based on the book itself (and not using references of the book itself), as it should tell about what happened after the publication of the book.
 * Ready to publish: Not yet. You made a good start, but the article needs to be restructured and rewritten as I described above.