User talk:Leigh Victoria/sandbox

Fantastic, Leigh! You've got a start. Two things: don't neglect Google Books. We are going to have a battle with Wikipedia's editors here (I predict) over "notability," so you don't want your references to be primary sources. Second thing: now you need to start stitching the references back to the paragraph. Use the reference pull-down menu, called "Cite," then "Templates," in your editor window. Just as in a research paper for a class, nothing should be on the reference list that is not formally cited in the body of your essay, and vice versa.Ssenier (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Once again, this is one of the best in the class. You've got the requisite length and some internal links. Now, start adding your references. You will be ready to go live by Friday.Ssenier (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I cannot get rid of the extra footnotes under my references.
 * Hello! To fix this problem, use the full text of the citation the first time you cite it, then the shortened form after that.  For example, the first time you want to cite the Boston Globe article by Knox, use the full .  Then, use  every other time.  The empty references happen when you use the  in the article before you use the full form. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, Victoria's LinkedIn page is not an independent source, and I would recommend against using it as a reference. In addition, a couple of your sources don't really talk about Peters in depth, and they don't have much useful information about her. A reviewer will be looking for in-depth coverage of Peters. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I have tidied up the other references and did some general copyediting, but I have to agree with Howicus' assessment of the references' quality. This one doesn't mention Peters at all and thus is useless for an article about Peters. The draft's tone may also need some work; editorial comments such as "of course" or "to name a couple" should be removed, and adjectives such as "beloved" don't have much of a place in an encyclopedia article. We aim for a dry, factual tone. Huon (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)