Astrodynamic

Welcome!

Hello, Astrodynamic, 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.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

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

- How could your peer improve the lead? I think the lead is good, but a little wordy. It gives a ton of information that, I feel, can be put into another section instead. Maybe try shortening it a little, but still have it be engaging. - Is the overall article structure clear? There's only one section and that's the lead. But, it does give a rundown of when the convention happened, what happened when it started, and who was there. So I would say that what's given is clear, but needs to be split up or moved to another section. - Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral? I think more should be focused on the why the convention happened, not just what happened. Having the who, what, when, where, and why, would just help explain things more. The tone is neutral. - Are the sources reliable? They're all reliable sources. - What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article? Breaking it up a little more into sections, as opposed to a large section would help. I can see that a convention speakers section is already created, which is good. Maybe having a background or a contents of the convention section would help. - What other things would you add or fix in the article? Obviously more is going to be added to the article, since one of the sections is blank. Based on your sources, you got a ton of information that you can use, which is great. So, just keep doing what you're doing, adding as much reliable and necessary information as you can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justus1455 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Prof. Smith comments on first draft of Wikipedia article

Hi Josh,

You have some good information here to start, but I do think you're going to need to do a fair amount of work to get the article ready for the final version. Here is what I would like to see:

1) The article is very short. Even if I factor in all the headings (minus the preliminary bibliography, which you should delete for the final version), the article is under 200 words. That means that you really need to bulk up the content of the article. I know you were having difficulty finding information, but I think you can do a lot more with the minutes of your meeting, which is a solid source of information. It seems like you left off mid-summary in the second section and didn't cover the convention as a whole. I would urge you to go back to the minutes and pull out the most important issues and themes that the members discussed. This will help establish the significance and notability of the convention.

2) On a related note, make sure your article has at least two headings for sections full of content. You only have one "Convention Speakers and Committees" right now.

3) As your peer Justus suggests, the lead gets into too much detail, too early. Your lead should be a really broad and general statement. I would go with something like: "The 1871 Ohio State Convention of Colored Men was a statewide convention of African American men to discuss the political rights and strategy of the state's black population in the wake of the Fifteenth Amendment." Save the rest of the information about place and date for the body of the article.

4) Use "African American" or "black" instead of "colored" in most places in the article (except the title and the lead, where you are referring to a specific event that had the term "colored" in the title). Using the word "colored" out of its historical context is offensive and should be avoided.

5) 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) 16:04, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Tasker feedback for peer review

"How could your peer improve the lead" - Your lead seems far too focused on the specific details of the convention. The lead should be providing a broad overview of the proceedings, not focusing on every little detail. Some of your leads content could be put in other sections. "Is the overall structure clear" - Yes the structure is clear but feels incomplete. An added section or two would be appropriate. "Is there balanced coverage of the topic? Is the tone neutral?" The coverage is balanced and neutral. There are only a few sentences so there is not much to go off for this. "Are the sources reliable" The sources appear reliable. "What proofreading or writing suggestions do you have to improve the article" Add some more information. Split it into more sections, don't go over every aspect and part of the proceedings in just one section. "What other things would you add or fix in the article" I would add a key persons section, in addition to all of the above changes I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StaceySmithOSU (talk • contribs) 16:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Kamala Harris for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Let's improve it, not hide facts. (Redacted).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrodynamic (talk • contribs)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

– Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Kamala Harris. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Facts are now called vandalizing. This is so much fodder for social media. You literally are stopping facts from being posted. And I have recorded proof. (Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrodynamic (talk • contribs)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)