User talk:Zachcorliss

Welcome!
Hello, Zachcorliss, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; 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. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Peer Review
The article has a lot of good information that seems to be backed up by reliable sources. The lead is concise and effectively gives a good understanding of the topic. The sections are very well organized and distinctive from one another. However, throughout the article there are some instances that lean in a subjectively positive way for Lee. Specifically, At the end of the Call to Preach sections, the article mentions Lee’s importance which seems a little subjective almost as if the article is making an argument of why she is important instead of just the objective facts about her. This also happens quite a bit in the Legacy section. Also, In the early life section, there is a rhetorical question in the middle of the paragraph, followed by a statement that is confusing without proper context. I would edit these to make them flow better and maybe remove the question to be more formal, concise, and objective. Overall the article flows very well and contains a lot of good and organized information. Blakebridges08 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought you did a great job on the article! You provided a lot of valuable information about Jarena Lee, and I felt as though it was organized very well. You also chose academic sources as well. Some changes I would suggest is to complete another proof read or two. There are a few grammatical errors throughout the article, but these are a quick fix. Another suggestion is that the article had some analytical aspects at times. For example, when you discussed the threefold impact that Jarena had, this comes off as analytical and not neutrally listing off facts. Also, at times the piece seemed slightly conversational. You said, "But how?" This phrase is full of voice, yet I am not sure if it is appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Overall, I thought you did a really great job and suggest just switching around a couple of phrases and double checking grammar. Morganjones1 (talk) 04:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Morganjones1