User talk:Riley Scalfaro/sandbox

The lead I thought was good and liked the fact the important parts were bolded so I can't think of any improvements in that area. The structure of your article is very clear with multiple sections causing everything wrote about to seem clear when read. The tone is neutral and some sections have more than others, but it seems to be the sections with less information have less primary source material about them so it is perfectly understandable why. All the sources are reliable from how they seemed when I read and clicked on them. The section about the church having only two sentences may mean it could be better being combined with the first section or find one more sentence to add? I don't think that is a big deal leaving it the way it is at the same time. The way it is already I feel is a complete article and gave me a few ideas on how to improve my own article. Dwhittaker74 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review Wikipedia DraftTiearamoore (talk) 00:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- How could your peer improve the lead? Hello Riley, thank you for sharing your research with us. As far as your lead can go, I would suggest leaving out generalizations. For example when you say that the convention had “many” speeches. I think that if you are to include those generalizations, your body should support it.

- Is the overall article structure clear? I understand what your article is communicating, but I would suggest for you to include more hyperlinks. It looks like you have chosen only two to use, and I think that by adding more, your article could cover a lot more detail.

- Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral? Your tone is overall neutral and you seem to leave out extended biases from being a historical writer-which is important. Furthermore, with the addition to a few more citations and hyperlinks, your argument could be a lot stronger.

- Are the sources reliable? Your sources look to be reliable, although some of your paragraphs neglect to use them. I would use more of the research that you have found and continue to cite those facts.

- What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article? I would suggest to proofread your headings and make sure your words are capitalized as they title your paragraphs. Also in your General Report of Main Committees, I would suggest that you use bullet points for those listings instead of separating them by space. This would look better on your article as well as organize it more.

- What other things would you add or fix in the article? By adding some minor detail and hyperlinks, I think your article becomes a lot more credible. Additionally, I think that by organizing your structure more with the use of bullet points, your research can come off a more clear.