Schoe043

Schoe043, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Schoe043! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review Added

Hi Sarah,

I just added a peer review to your sandbox and as per the instructions, I am pasting the review in your User talk page as well.

It was a pleasure reading over your draft, and I just want to offer some comments that will hopefully be helpful for you as you go forward. I think you've made substantial improvements to the original lead and background sections, adding useful information and polishing the statements. Especially for the background section, I definitely felt more clear about what actually happened that led up to the Skokie affair after reading your version than after reading the original.

In terms of the content, everything is definitely relevant. Since there are only two sections right now, I can't really speak to the structure of the article. I would, for now, recommend a smoother transition between sentences on different contents. For example, I felt that it's a bit abrupt where you went from Skokie Park District's decision to raise the money required for the demonstration to talking about Skokie having many Jews.

In terms of tone, I think you are mostly just reporting factual information and thus the tone is fairly neutral. However, as per the suggestions on the Wikipedia training modules, I think it might be a good idea to avoid using the structure of "while..., ..." because it implies a judgment in favor of the latter part. I found it a little disturbing here, where you wrote "While there were no opinions written, the implication of the Supreme Court's 1977 NSPA decision..." but didn't include any sources to support that. Readers might wonder about where this "implication" comes from, and it indicates a possible bias. There is a place where you used "while" in the background section too, but that one is a more factual rendition about Collin and is supported by a source, which is good. But my general suggestion is to avoid using those structures with a turning that might point to a biased viewpoint.

In terms of citation, I think you did a wonderful job citing from reliable sources such as books published by an academic press and news articles. I also like how you have multiple different sources cited in one paragraph, which makes me feel that a balanced set of viewpoints is being considered. This is something that I can improve on in my own work. However, I would suggest that you include one citation for every sentence. In one training module or the Wikipedia handbook (I don't remember exactly where), it says that the minimum requirement is that one sentence has at least one citation (even if that means that multiple sentences will have the same citation). I found it a bit frustrating too, but I think it's good practice and so we should stick to it. Also, as mentioned above, there are some places where you don't have a citation after a large factual chunk, something you might want to add later.

I think that's pretty much it! Overall, it is a really nice draft, and I look forward to seeing how it turns out!

Lilyzzf (talk) 03:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC) Lily Zhou (User ID: Lilyzzf)