User talk:Pcooperterpmail

Welcome!
Hello, Pcooperterpmail, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedback requested
Hi, Pcooperterpmail. Were you looking to add your content to The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Hi, Pcooperterpmail. I've made some changes to your draft. I restructured the first half of it slightly to attempt to reduce the reliance on quotations from participants in the debate. Right now I'd say there are a few quotes which are already summarized in the text or could be summarized in your own words and removed. Sometimes it is important to get the exact wording of a critique recorded and other times (e.g. if the issue is over something that can be understood by a reader easily like documentation) a summary will do.
 * Ok. I wanted to make sure, because it changes how I'll look at the draft. I'll get back to you shortly with some comments. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I also added a few tags where the text is unclear to me. When we say that many scholars support Lovejoy's assessment, what source are we using to make that claim? Are there others who have weighed in on the topic? Should we cite and summarize their comments? Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Peer Editing
Hey, Phillip. This is Charlotte. I think you did a good job describing the controversy about Equiano's origins by going into detail about the different perspectives. However, I feel that the information could be synthesized more effectively. For instance, you might want to summarize or paraphrase the quotes (or reduce them to what is most important) and integrate them into your paragraphs, rather than leaving them separate. Also, you might want to combine some of the paragraphs or put them under subheadings to make the information a little easier to follow. The 'Controversy About Origins' title should be bolded (although it might already be in the original article). Check your last sentence to make sure it ends with the right punctuation. I also noticed that you may have some problems with your coding for the references because some of them are repeated at the bottom (and marked by different numbers even though they are the same). This can be solved by designating each particular references with a code word, for instance (this is an example from my article):

ref name="two" (this would be surrounded by <> brackets), followed by the cited source, ending with a /ref tag (surrounded by <>)

By designating the reference with a word, in this case, "two", you can simplify the way you designate it later in the article by putting,

ref name="two"/ (also surrounded by <>)

That will allow the same number to be used for the same source if you need to sight it again, and will avoid the repeating reference problem.

If you're still confused, you can go look at the source editing for my page to see how I did it.

Cmartlover (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Phillip, I think what you have here looks really good so far. I think you did some great research. However, I agree with Charlotte's point about bringing everything together more. As it looks right now, it feels a little disjointed. I just think you have to work on the flow of the article better, and then you should be all set. Maxsiskind (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey Phillip,

It looks like you have good information but I think you need go reword some of it to make it clearer. It was hard for me to follow exactly what the baptism records showed. It would be good if you spelled out exactly what the arguments were. I would also include links or explanations for things the audience wont know like his people in Africa and the markings on his face.

Thomas Erickson