User talk:Laiacond/sandbox

Hello Dominic!

How could your peer improve the lead? - Your lead is fairly short, but it tells me the who, when, where, and why of your convention. If you have anymore general information, such as how many people attended or something like that, it might be helpful to include it, but otherwise it's very straight forward.

Is the overall article structure clear? - I think that your structure is good. The convention proceedings might be better as the first section, but you do connect the proceedings to the participants in a way that I don't know if you can do if you switch the order. It's up to you. Also, you should include your footnote citations in your references instead of your Chicago Style ones.

Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral? - Overall, your tone is very neutral and the topic coverage is good. I would slightly revise your second paragraph of your proceedings. It reads as an observation rather than like "facts' or whatever. If you received that information from a certain source, maybe say like "Historian blah blah stated this..."

Are the sources reliable? - Your sources are very reliable! I see a newspaper, a book or journal of some kind and then the convention proceedings/notes. Looks great.

What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article? - There are a few errors in commas and apostrophes, so I would just read over it again to catch those. Other than that, your word choice and sentence structure are very good.

What other things would you add or fix in the article? - Maybe add a couple more external links if you can. Otherwise, it looks great!Addiedaye (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article
Hi Dominic,

You have a very good start to your article here. Here are a few things that I would like you to improve. 1) Is it really necessary to break out Convention proceedings by speaker? I think it would be effective, and more in line with Wikipedia's typical article structure, to just have a couple of paragraphs describing the key people and issues that they discussed (basically, like your second large paragraph). I don't think the material is complicated enough that you need to break everything down by speaker and individual arguments.

2) Under "Convention Proceedings," revise this sentence for clarity: "The majority of Boston newspapers did not send representatives to report of the convention and the few that did so in feeble attempt."

3)The tone under "Convention Proceedings" also starts to seem less balanced and objective, as if you are praising the convention. I think you really mean to be explaining what the Liberator newspaper said about the convention? If so, I would change the wording to explain that William Lloyd Garrison, the editor of the Liberator and Boston's most famous abolitionist, wrote these words of praise about the convention.

4) The town where the convention was located is New Bedford, not New Belford. Be sure to change that throughout your text.

5) The "References" section should have your citations under it, instead of your bibliography. See my instructions on the template I handed out in class to create a proper references section.

6) Finally, were African American women involved in the convention at all? Our partner website, the Colored Conventions Project, really wants us to add material on women whenever possible.StaceySmithOSU (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

StaceySmithOSU (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Earley feedback from peer review
I like the included picture of the map from the same year!

Lead: My only critique is that the time the convention started seems like too much information, especially for a lead. If you want to keep that detail, I would recommend moving it to another section.

The article structure is clear, though going through convention proceedings before then analyzing some of the key speakers may aid the flow of the article. You go into what was being discussed in the right amount of depth; it's not a dissertation, nor is it purely surface-level.

Coverage seems balanced. The only point that delves into potential unbalanced territory would be the last paragraph of "Convention Proceedings." I think you offer multiple sides and responses, though finding another source or evidence may help to make that section more neutral.

Your sources seem sound and reliable. If you can find any scholarship on this convention or the convention movement it may help to expand the article.

I don't notice any glaring grammar or spelling mistakes. Taking a once-over on your punctuation may help the readability of the article, but I don't see anything that stands out.

My only closing critique would be of the section on the people involved. It's not that the people aren't important, but if they aren't all too notable it may just be better to write what they were orating on into a bigger convention proceedings section.

Earleyc (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs)