User talk:Lukegtasker

Hello, Lukegtasker, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor 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. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justus1455 (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Justus Hollingshed== Peer review of Wikipedia article ==[reply]

- How could your peer improve the lead? The introduction is good, I would maybe add why the convention was held other then just when it was held. The contents of the convention section has this, but I think you can give a short sentence as to why it was held in the lead and go more into it, in its own section. - Is the overall article structure clear? Other then the lead and contents section being expanded upon, I think it is. It gives background information of events leading up to the convention, explains what happens, then says who was there. - Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral? A lot of the information given focuses on things that happened before hand, not really the convention itself. I would say the tone is neutral. - Are the sources reliable? I think all of the sources are reliable. I thought the Star Tribune one was a little sketchy at first, but after learning that it's Minnesota's largest newspaper that's been around for 150 years, I think it's good. - What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article? Just to go more into the actual convention and its contents. Finding more information on that will help broaden the writing a little more. Also, when you say "mainly" like in the contents of the convention section, it makes it sound like you're unsure about the information or that there is another reason it was called. - What other things would you add or fix in the article? Just any other reliable information you can find. Whether it's about the convention, who was there, what happened, anything would help. I liked the background section because it does, in a way, explain why the convention was held. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus1455 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review. General info

   Whose work are you reviewing? Lukegtasker
   Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Lukegtasker/sandbox

Lead

Guiding questions:

   Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Yes
   Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? yes
   Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Yes
   Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
   Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Nice and concise.

Lead evaluation Content

Guiding questions:

   Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes
   Is the content added up-to-date? Yes
   Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? No appears complete as a draft

Content evaluation Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

   Is the content added neutral? Yes
   Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No, neutrally worded
   Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? No
   Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, simply provide information about event.

Tone and balance evaluation Sources and References

Guiding questions:

   Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? very much so.
   Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? As far as I can tell y
   Are the sources current? Yes
   Check a few links. Do they work? All links functioned

Sources and references evaluation Organization

Guiding questions:

   Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? yes, easy to read and follow the flow.
   Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? None that I caught.
   Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Organization evaluation Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

   Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? yes
   Are images well-captioned? yes
   Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? yes
   Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? yes

Images and media evaluation For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

   Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? 3 sources total yes
   How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? Could be more if there are any available as there were just 3. Could be hard to find
   Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Yes it fits along with other articles of this style.
   Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? yes it does

New Article Evaluation Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

   Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Improved, by structuring information
   What are the strengths of the content added? Simplicity, and flow of information.
   How can the content added be improved? Continue adding relevant information.

Overall evaluation Adheres to grading rubric and assignment details. StaceySmithOSU (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Luke,

I think your article is off to a very good start. Here is what I would like to see you work on for the final draft.

1) I think that your lead could use some revision so that you state more generally what the convention was and did. I would go with something like: The 1869 Convention of Colored Citizens of Minnesota was the first statewide meeting of African Americans in Minnesota history. The convention discussed the newly won voting rights of African Americans and political strategy. [Use your own discretion about what is most important to say about what the convention did in the lead.]

2) I would like to see you work on the section titled "Contents of the Convention." First, I would change the title of that section to "Outcomes" or "Major Issues at the Convention." This section is also what your readers are coming here to read: the significant impacts of the convention. I would like to see you develop the content here and go into more detail. What specific political strategies did they discuss? Did they have any important votes or resolutions? What did the white Republicans have to say to the black Republicans, and vice versa? Integrated political meetings were very uncommon in this era, so readers are going to want to know what was so important, significant, or notable about this convention. Going back to your minutes and giving more detail in this section will improve the article a lot.

3) Remember to delete the Preliminary Bibliography at the very bottom of the article.

4) Finally, were African American women involved in the convention at all? Our partner website, the Colored Conventions Project, really wants us to add material on women whenever possible. Please check your minutes again on this point and include information on women if possible.StaceySmithOSU (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]