User talk:JimKirn888

I think your post is very informative. There are a few formatting errors and there isn't a lead section per se, but besides that, the piece is good. Also, try to include some links in the article, if you can.

I do truly feel bad for the Virginian Exiles. They were treated a quite unfairly. Pseaton (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

There are some references towards the end that appear like [1] [2] instead of with a link to the references section.k I understand that there is a lead section, but the formatting is a little off. Good narrative! Good Length, too. (areimold (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC).

This is a well developed Wiki page. I feel that you covered the basics and general facts and info that goes along with this topic all in an organized and concise manner. As stated before, just be careful about your formatting. My only question is, in section 5 you mention that there were other reasons the public and the government reconsidered the treatment of Quakers. What you talk about in the next section, is that what you are referring to above? I'm a bit unclear and I'm confused as the reader. If you are adding onto that last statement in section 5, maybe add what those concerns are right underneath that sentence. Smrose788 (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

You have a lot of good information and do a nice job of telling about the whole topic. The only issues I find are formating which seems to have been touched on by others. It seems that your first section is the Lead sections. If you moved that to the top without a title then you would be good. Mregan5 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I do believe this post on the Virginia Exiles is detailed and informative. The only issues I observed were grammatical and formatting, which can easily be adjusted. Also, Im assuming your lead section is your first, so thats another formatting issue. Besides that, the post is good and has good length.AJC301 (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems as though everything that I would have said has already been touched on. Your article is very informative and full of important information in relation to your topic. Also, the article is organized well. The only issues I found with your article I see is grammatical issues/formatting. Other than that, good work! Cait.cowan (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I liked this article, as such things as grammar and formatting are easy fixes. However, I was curious about the statement "Besides considering their moral stance on the sins of war and the Quakers stern belief in Pacafism, they had political and economic reasons to be against the war". What were the political and economic reasons that the Quakers were against the war? Yobolehobo (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)