User talk:Jesse R Long

Needs Improvement Reasoning
"=headingtitle="

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musician


 * Not written with a neutral tone
 * Leaves out key categories with definition of "musician"
 * Problematic categorizations
 * Not enough information given to non-western music/musicians
 * Need more expansion on noted musicians during time period
 * More focused on "music" rather than "musicians"
 * Organization of "musical eras" leaves a lot of information out
 * The introduction of "musician's possible skills" doesn't align/complement the information concerning "musicians by era"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquor


 * There's information about other alcoholic beverages that are not "liquor" throughout
 * Ex: flammability
 * Fluctuation between the use of "distilled spirits" liquor
 * No sources cites with "health effects"
 * No precursor of "government regulation" in the intro
 * Subsections don't align with main headings
 * Ex: micro distilling under government regulation
 * Not sure why temperature is written in Celsius
 * Alcohol consumption by country isn't necessary
 * Incorrect information in the history section

--Jesse R Long (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Jesse R Long, 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) 20:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Vetting
Here are my thoughts on your 5 article choices for this project, Jesse:

Flannery O'Connor: It seems like there are some content gaps in a couple sections, so this could be a viable article (especially when you determine the article's purpose).

Persuasion: This seems like a good fit for the project, particularly in terms of tone and source integration. The editing history seems active, so it's likely you'll be engaging with other editors here.

Royal Shakespeare Company: There are some possibilities here in terms of structure, but the volume of material may make this one more challenging.

The Story of King Arthur and His Knights: This article has stalled and needs a lot of work, so it could work really well.

Victorian Lit: This could also be a good fit, since it's been flagged for citation issues and some sections could be fleshed out.

Overall: You've positioned yourself well with these choices. I would recommend Persuasion and King Arthur as great candidates for the project, with Victorian Lit also being a strong contender. Choose the ones you feel you have an initial plan for. Spike Mugiwara (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback! I am planning to edit the Persuasion article and the King Arthur Article. Jesse R Long (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Quotes are not essential in ref names
You have added all those quote marks, they are in place now in the article about Persuasion (novel). They were not essential, as they followed the rules here and used none of the special characters that make the quote marks essential. It is a time saver to me, use the alphabet and the numbers 0 to 9 in a ref name. Just for your information. --Prairieplant (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)