User talk:Wesrhea/sandbox

good initial start on the article hopefully you can add more detail on the later half of this persons life.

HI WES: REALLY GOOD WORK ON THIS. AND I CAN SEE THAT YOU HAVE A SANDBOX VERSION AND A DRAFT. WORK IN EITHER PLACE AND IT IS JUST FINE. THE SECTIONS YOU'VE COMPLETED LOOK GOOD AND YOU'VE FIGURED OUT THE WIKIPEDIA FORMATTING. THE FIRST SECTION LOOKS GREAT AND DOES THE JOB IT SHOULD. YOUR WRITING IS STRAIGHTFORWARD AND CLEAR. THINK ABOUT HOW TO OPEN IT AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT THE LAST PART OF HIS LIFE WHERE THERE IS LESS DETAIL. CONSIDER BREAKING UP THE BIG CENTRAL SECTION IF IT GET TOO LONG. REMEMBER THE BACKGROUND THAT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AUDIENCE NEEDS AND USE LINKS TO GUIDE PEOPLE TO MORE STUFF ABOUT LEWIS AND CLARK. YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO EXPLAIN SOME BASICS ABOUT THE LOUISIANA PURCHASE, SLAVERY IN MISSOURI,ETC..

THE NEXT STEP IS TO FINISH UP THE SECTIONS YOU HAVE LAID OUT HERE. THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE IS GOING TO BE FINDING A FEW MORE SOURCES SO YOU CAN ADD TO YOUR REFERENCES AND CITATIONS. SPEND A LITTLE TIME ON THE OU LIBRARY WEBSITE AND PLAY AROUND WITH SOME SEARCH TERMS. A LOT OF THIS MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ONLINE, ESPECIALLY ARTICLES. SCHOLARS WHO PUBLISHED VARIOUS EDITIONS OF THE LEWIS AND CLARK JOURNALS AND THE INTRODUCTIONS THEY WROTE TO HIS TEXT WOULD BE GREAT SOURCES FOR THIS. MOST OF THOSE ARE ONLINE TOO.

GOOD START AND JUST PUSHING ALONG. (I'M PUTTING A CHECKLIST OF THINGS TO THINK THROUGH FOR YOUR FINAL VERSION JUST BELOW MY NAME. . . )

ANNE HYDE

LEAD: Does your lead summarize the entire article by briefly covering all important aspects of the topic? Does it work as an outline for the whole article?

First sentence: does it serve as a definition of the article topic, with the topic itself — be it a person, place, thing, idea or concept — in bold, and a brief description that puts it into context.

(Example: Anna Anderson (c. 16 December 1896 – 12 February 1984) was the best known of several impostors who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia.)

BODY: Fact-based, not persuasive writing. The article is a description of the information you can find about a topic, based on good sources.

Did you write in your own words? Check that the article doesn’t contain excessive quotations, or copy any sources, even if you’ve given them credit.

Does the article let the reader decide for themselves? Avoid persuasive language? Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral?

Did you proofread? Basic grammar and spelling are correct? Complete sentences? Remove first-person (“I/we”) or second-person (“you”) writing.

Formal tone and simple language? No technical language or jargon? Check that you’ve explained acronyms and jargon in simple English the first time you use them.

Is your formatting consistent with the rest of Wikipedia? No bullet-pointed lists or too many headings in your article.

SOURCES: Is every claim cited to a reliable source?

Are there unsourced statements? Are there enough sources

Are the sources reliable and authoritative. Does each source have citations – footnotes, bibliography, etc.

Good sources include textbooks or academic journals. Don’t cite blog posts.

WHAT ABOUT IMAGES, LINKS?Afh1858 (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)