Welcome!
editHello, Slh140, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Adam and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; 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
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
editHi! It's Sophia from class. I am doing your peer review. So to start off with, I would go through your article and start to weed out the quotes. The article is really quote heavy, and the constant quoting can break up the flow of the article and complicate the readers understanding. A lot of the quotes have the potential to be easily put in different words to say the same thing. The quotes that I thought were useful were in the Visitorship section. These quotes were describing individual experiences of the museum, and, therefore, I thought they were helpful. However, almost all of the other quotes could be taken out/rephrased. The first paragraph of the lead section is great. I thought it was very clear and gave me a general understanding of what the article was going to be about. I found the second paragraph of the lead slightly random. I didn't see how it connected with the first paragraph. I think it would be better under a "members" heading where you could go more into depth about who was in the society. In the "museum history" section, the structure was great. Every time I had a question pop into my head, it was answered in the next sentence. However, this is another section where it is too quote heavy. Small question: under the "cultural curiosities" heading, there is a part that says "pompey" and I am wondering if you meant to say "pompeii?" The subheadings of history are great. I think they are perfect ways to organize the content. A place for expansion would be in your "visitor controversy." I think it would be great if you could take about the treatment of African Americans in Salem more broadly and then speak about individual members and why they would have voted to ban blacks from the society. Overall, great article! Good luck finishing up! Sgj7 (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review by Harshita Gaba
editHi! Great article- from just an organizational perspective (before reading anything), this article seems to be laid out very neatly. The subheadings especially give me a good sense of exactly “where” in the article to go if I have a specific line of inquiry.
The first paragraph of your intro gives me a great comprehensive overview of the topic, but does not overwhelm me with details. One thing that I would clarify, however, is the use of a direct quotations (specifically in the first sentence of your lead), and especially without clarifying where the quotation is from. I feel like generally, Wikipedia trainings/ representatives suggests we not use direct quotations. There are many quotes incorporated throughout the article, but I do think that putting information into your own words makes the text more accessible- sometimes the quotes use older English, which don’t fit with the rhythm of the rest of the text. In general, I think that direct quotes should only be used on Wikipedia if their source is mentioned, and significant. Of course, this might just be a technique I am not used to, and I think it’s best to either clarify with Professor Strong or the Wikipedia representative.
Besides that, I think the external links provided at the end of the article (Members and Vessels) are great oppurtunities for me to learn more about a specific object, or simply understand the breadth of objects available. And finally, you have a huge list of sources, which is great. Hgaba (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)