User talk:Soy candle lady/sandbox

Avoid use of words like "today:" you never know when someone is going to be reading this. Also be careful of sentences like this which violate rules of neutrality: "He was on a downward spiral to either prison for life, or death." Try to simply stick to the facts and avoid conjecture. There's also an issue with citations here: CATF is relied on a bit to heavily and there needs to be a greater number of citations throughout the article. There's also an issue of organization here: it's hard to tell what order all of this is happening in. Many of Sharp's activities seem a bit jumbled and it's hard to tell at what stage in his career certain things are happening. Also, consider being more specific in areas. For example, who are these people you mention in this sentence: "There were some prominent members of the black community. I am impressed at how quickly you've managed to grow this article; I think it has real potential. Colbuendia71 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

When reading this, I found that you have come a long way with material and facts to work with. Most importantly when writing on Wikipedia it is important to not be wordy, but rather to write sentences that are clear and direct for the reader. Wordiness could come across as bias or unclear. Once deleting certain extra words from the context you have so far written, I would work on organizing each section. Right now you have a great deal of material to work with, but there is no clear organization of the page. Once you begin to work on the asthetic of the page, you will be on the right path as far as creating your own page for Poppy Charles. Make sure to focus on the citations as soon as possible because the amount of context you have could make it difficult to remember everywhere that needs to be cited. Over all, this is a long way from the last time we spoke when you could not find clear facts to be used on Wikipedia. Oakland528 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)Oakland528

Right off the bat, you have a ton of information which is good because it gives you something to work with. You do a good job presenting the story of Sharp in a linear way and a clear timeline. However, your page feels a bit storylike. It reads more like you're telling me about his life as opposed to just showing me the facts. Lines like "Peter O'Connor was a young white lawyer who worked for the Camden Legal Services office." Feels like the start of a short story. I think rephrasing it (as well as other parts) to sound more objective will create a more 'mainspae' ready page. I think the ending to your page is a great transition into the Camden riots of the 70's. Adding in info for that would both add relevant information as well as open up new sources for you to use. Maybe even update the page heading from Poppy Sharp into the BPUM in general? All in all i enjoy the page. I think you've done a great amount of work, and im excited to see it on the full site. Rustygreaves (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Since I last read your page, it seems you have added more information on the subject however you really need to work on formatting now that we are closer to the due date. The page lacks organization, but once you have headers, it will be easy to organize the information in a way that makes sense. Hopefully with the last meeting we had with our partners they were able to give you some more information on Poppy Sharp and BLM so that you can meet the word requirements moving forward. Once you work toward organizing and labeling the page I think you will have a really great page that will give people access to information about BLM and Poppy Sharp that they would not have without your contribution. Oakland528 (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)oakland528