User talk:Shaburke/sandbox

Hi! So after looking over your wikipedia page, it looks pretty good and well organized. The summary section on your page made sense as far as what you were leading into, without making the rest of your page sound repetitive. I think that is something we can take away from your article and apply it ours to have a stronger summary and lead into the rest of or Wikipedia page. One of the only things I really noticed, was that there was only 5 sections; two of which are the name of the page and then the references. If there is anyway possible, it might be more helpful if there were more main sections of the page really breaking down and covering more on your topic. Other than that I'd say it's coming along great. Hope this helps!

Alligoldm (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer edit
Hey group 10! So I love your topic, that's a really meaningful thing to write up on. You have very good organization and sub-headings going on. In the summary section, I would read it out loud because some of the sentences seem a little like run-ons and/or are worded a little funny. The first sentence, for example, could be broken down into 2 sentences. Also when you say, "the city leader, both black and white," do you mean the city leader was black and white mixed or do you mean there were multiple city leaders? Maybe specify who the city leader was and what their stance/course of action was. Also the grammar "to education these children," should be rewritten. Also, the summary section is kind of jumpy. I think you could make this section into more sub-headings and add more detail to each aspect instead of having just one or 2 sentences on each of these details ie.) the background/how it was constructed and the "african ethic" part or even how it ended. You do have some good info in here though, just read it out loud and look for a few grammar errors/check the flowiness of it. The mission and the notable members sections sound really good! Nice work guys, hit me up if you still have questions or are confused about anything I said. Good luck with the rest of your article! (Lmerko (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC))

Peer Review, William (Billy) Heckathorn
Good morning/afternoon/evening!!! I want to start of by saying that you guys have a very creative topic. The information you have is really interesting, and your sources are credible and informative. I did find a couple of grammatical errors. Specifically, after the sentence "Henrietta Green Regulus Ray was a very active abolitionist" there is just the word "other" and then a period. Also, I know that you probably can't find a lot of information on it, but if you could, it would be a nice ending to find out how or why they became inactive. Other than that your article is really interesting and i look forward to seeing what it looks like when we're done. BillyHeck70 (talk) 18:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hello group 10. I like where your page is headed but there is definitely room to grow and I hope I can help with that. Your lead is very strong, sums everything up nice and quick, and is nicely worded. The only thing I would suggest is instead of just tacking on who the prominent members of the society were right at the end, find a way to incorporate them into the lead. (ex. "The ____ society, which was lead by..."). Other than that, my team members pointed out the other things I noticed sans one. In the lead as well as in the summary you mention that, first: the society closed in 1830, second: "the society faced public scrutiny". Since you are doing a stub if this information is on the main page already then forget I said anything. With those two mentions, I, as the reader was very curious about what kind of scrutiny the society faced and whether or not that was a player in it's closing a year later. Other than that, great job so far you guys! Can't wait to see it all finished! Keep up the good work.RahmTahm (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback
Nice work on your article draft. I think "History" might be a better section title than "Summary". Your references are messed up - I don't quite understand what you've done there. Please make sure to clean that up. (When replying to this message, please include  in your response, to ensure that I see your reply.) Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ian, what do you mean regarding our citations? Do we need to simplify them? We're not really sure what we need to fix. Thank you! Melyssaeve (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)