User talk:Jcblumha/Matilda Joslyn Gage

Great article selection! I am interested in revisiting this article when your final contributions are complete to see what you’ve done to it. I found your sandbox draft an important addition to Gage’s wikipedia portfolio of activism since your contribution 'Witch trials' mentions such a remarkable area of work.

Structure wise, from what you have on the sandbox draft so far I assume you are contributing by adding a new topic section (witch trials) to the whole of the article. If this is in fact correct and in attempts to assess your articles ideal structure, I'd like to think that you are planning on adding this new section somewhere under ‘Activism’ in which case, I find this very clever as it gives an impactful insight on the depths of Gage's work. If this isn’t what you initial envisioned maybe this would be a good placement to consider! Your title ‘Witch trials’ seems suitable to better explain the general topic that will be discussed under this section. Good job with this! Your contribution carries a neutral unbiased tone and is well supported with proper citations, the only moment when I saw sourcing was perhaps overlooked and imagine you just forgot or haven’t added it yet was in the last sentence of your last paragraph- “Although not… for Justice.” - which is not sourced and due to the heavy claim that it holds it should be attached to a reliable source.

It was hard for me to identify the relevance of the quotations to understanding the rest of the topic. It is possible that I simply missed it, so if you grasp full understanding of how the quote adds to the understanding disregard this comment! Additionally, I have a strong feeling that the quotations may not be acceptable at all. After rewatching the plagiarism and copyright assignment to refresh my memory, I believe the cited quote which you included in the draft may be an infringement on wikipedia’s copyrights rules as even though it is cited it keeps the exact same wording of full passages of another author’s work. The quotations would only be acceptable when borrowing brief passages that provide significant insight on the topic. However, I find it best to wait for the professor's peer review as I am not totally sure of this. --Shelly Nazareth (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC) Great article selection! I am interested in revisiting this article when your final contributions are complete to see what you’ve done to it. I found your sandbox draft an important addition to Gage’s wikipedia portfolio of activism since your contribution 'Witch trials' mentions such a remarkable area of work.

Structure wise, from what you have on the sandbox draft so far I assume you are contributing by adding a new topic section (witch trials) to the whole of the article. If this is in fact correct and in attempts to assess your articles ideal structure, I'd like to think that you are planning on adding this new section somewhere under ‘Activism’ in which case, I find this very clever as it gives an impactful insight on the depths of Gage's work. If this isn’t what you initial envisioned maybe this would be a good placement to consider! Your title ‘Witch trials’ seems suitable to better explain the general topic that will be discussed under this section. Good job with this! Your contribution carries a neutral unbiased tone and is well supported with proper citations, the only moment when I saw sourcing was perhaps overlooked and imagine you just forgot or haven’t added it yet was in the last sentence of your last paragraph- “Although not… for Justice.” - which is not sourced and due to the heavy claim that it holds it should be attached to a reliable source.

It was hard for me to identify the relevance of the quotations to understanding the rest of the topic. It is possible that I simply missed it, so if you grasp full understanding of how the quote adds to the understanding disregard this comment! Additionally, I have a strong feeling that the quotations may not be acceptable at all. After rewatching the plagiarism and copyright assignment to refresh my memory, I believe the cited quote which you included in the draft may be an infringement on wikipedia’s copyrights rules as even though it is cited it keeps the exact same wording of full passages of another author’s work. The quotations would only be acceptable when borrowing brief passages that provide significant insight on the topic. However, I find it best to wait for the professor's peer review as I am not totally sure of thisShelly Nazareth (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)