Talk:Slocum massacre

Peer edits from Sydney Trumper

Overall, I feel your Wiki page is very well written as you have nice transitions within the headings and descriptive details explaining the Texas history of violence towards African Americans, the Slocum Massacre itself, the media’s reaction to the Slocum Massacre, the suspects involved, the federal government’s reaction, further destruction of Slocum, and the stories of the massacre. Your lead paragraph does not flow as well as it could. I would combine some sentences together or add a little bit more information describing the importance of the Slocum Massacre. You could add what did the Slocum Massacre show or add to the sentence explaining the effect it had on African Americans. The Texas history of Violence section is very well written, I do not think any revision should be done here as it is descriptive and informational. On the possible reasons for the Slocum Massacre section, I would add a white supremacy reason as that may have also been a huge factor along with African Americans being threatened economically. The Slocum Massacre section is amazing as it tells the reader information about the Slocum Massacre and describes how the event might have started as well as the event’s impact on African Americans. I would suggest that you make the possible causes of the Slocum Massacre a subheading or add it in to this section to help with the flow of the Wiki page as you hit on some of the points that describe the possible causes of the massacre in the main massacre section. The media’s reaction to the Slocum Massacre is detailed and has a list of media sources. I do not believe any revising needs to be done in the section as it get straight to the point. In the suspects section, I would make a list of the suspects and if they were charged or released. In paragraph form it can be hard to read, on the other hand I feel this section is excellent. The Federal Government involvement in the case section is detailed and I feel no revision should be done on this paragraph as it is very descriptive. The further destruction of Slocum section is great, I would suggest numbering the events to add some pizzazz. For example, one for the fire and two for the tornado. The stories from the Slocum Massacre section is detailed and well developed, I believe little to no revision should be done. If you want, you can add a transition between the stories. The other works of the Slocum Massacre section ends a little weird. I would add a sentence to summarize the works at the end of your paragraph. Sources are reliable and the structure is clear Sjt0238 (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Sjt0238

Peer edits from Abi Flores

The overview section of the Slocum Massacre could be re-arranged, specifically sentence four, I think it is a bit too wordy. Paragraph three in Texas History of Violence Towards African Americans seems a bit unnecessary. The reasons behind the Slocum Massacre also seems unnecessary because I think you guys do a good job of covering that within the actual Slocum Massacre body section. Within the whole page there are some sentences that need commas, have typos, or there is repetition in phrasing. When you guys talk about the criminal charges filed I would double check the phrasing. I was also confused on how many people actually died because there is such a large range in the overview but then in the smaller body paragraphs you guys say eleven or something similar. Overall I thought this wikipedia page is really well developed and detailed. Abiflo18 (talk) 00:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)Abi Flores

Review

Great set up, page already seems very well formatted and developed. Its pretty long so i'll try to break it up as you have it. Just reading through I can find a few places where some rewording might allow it to seem a bit more condensed. Lots of good info though.

1.1 - Info is great, gives a good background to situation. It takes some effort to see the direct connection to these examples and your main idea, maybe add a sentence or paragraph to show the reader "Why it matters/ what it caused"

1.2 - Lots of details which builds a great mental picture of the scenario. At times the word choices seem a bit to simple for the heaviness of what you're talking about ("...did not seem like a good sign..." or "...and they started drinking..."). Definitely gets the info across but I think this would be a great section to show the tragedy and seriousness of the situation through your word choice. Very highly detailed and great info, rewritten a bit it will tell a great story.

1.3 - The first paragraph feels a bit repetitive maybe try to combine some info or sentences. Second paragraph has some grammar errors (ex. "...but..." in second sentence) and feels a bit wordy. Good choice to devote a section to the media coverages though it provides interesting info that shows the bias of the media.

1.4 - First three paragraphs are a bit difficult to read and follow, but I'm not sure there would be a better way to convey the info, its repetitive by nature. I thought the list with all the names was a great touch, easy to read and interpret, and clearly shows the results (Maybe focus on developing the list ?(or make it a chart)) .

1.5 - Maybe some opportunities to combine info or sentences here. This section brings up a lot of loose ends, but that might be the point you're trying to prove. Good info and continues your story well.

1.6 - Grammar and word choice(grammar). Point one feels a bit wordy maybe try to condense. Point two feels like a stretch but with rewording i think it will work for you. This is the only section i'm unsure if you need to keep, but if you can relate it to the massacre and focus on how it hindered further action/investigation I think its okay.

1.7 - Its hard to transition between different peoples stories but it does feel a bit abrupt. Maybe try to combine stories based on content or at lease transition between stories by relating them. Its great to have personal stories tho definitely adds to your article nicely.

1.8 - Good thing to include, maybe say how they relate if you feel necessary.

Overall very good, lots of detail. Bit wordy at times and most of the grammar would be fixed if you have it read out loud by the computer and listen it is mostly stuff like "an" instead of "any" etc. Let me know if you you need me to clarify anything great job :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bam100 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help in making this page better! Smc083 (talk) 15:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Sydney Culver

Conflicting Info & Lede

First off, this is a great article. Please don't take anything below as criticism of this solid work.

The number of people killed is ambiguous. That is normal for events from this period. However, the article itself has several contradictions. The lede offers a range of six to 22. The high number is supported by the body, but the text contradicts the lower limit.

• Though only five casualties were confirmed... If the RS supports that, the lede should say 5-22.
• However, we need to account for this: ...seven other men who died in the massacre were... It then lists seven very specific names. If an RS named the victims, it is hard for the lower number to be under seven.
• Then we add in Alex Holley. The line I just quoted starts, Besides the Holleys, (emphasis added). That would give us a lower limit of eight.
• That gets a bit muddled as well. The use of the plural, 'Holleys', in that same snippet implies at least one family member in addition to Alex was slaughtered. The pushes the low end to nine.

If we could tighten this, it would be great. If the sources really are unsettled -- which I expect to be the case until I saw the list of named victims -- I think it would be wise to correct the lede to include the lower limit of five. Also, you might look for an RS that has a specific discussion of the discrepancies and inline-quote it.

Secondly, one quirk of the current iteration of Wikipedia is that the picture and the first fifty-or-so words appear on hover (for desktop) or touch (for mobile) on an article link. That snapshot of the lede gives visitors a chance to see if the article will be of interest. As it stands, the reader see cannot know from the preview that this was a race-driven event. I would suggest rewording the first sentence to something like, "The Slocum massacre was the killing of Black residents by Whites on July 29–30, 1910, in Slocum, an unincorporated community in Anderson County near Palestine in East Texas." Other options can be found in articles for related events, including 'episode of racial violence', 'carried out by white supremacists', etc. I mention this because the timeframe is dead centre amongst a slew of labour-related massacres, largely around mining. It is outside the range many would expect to find race-motivated, post-slavery mass murder which are more typical in the 1880s/90s or mid-20th Century.

Cheers, Last1in (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Getting no objections in over a month, I am making the changes. I am using seven as the lower limit (it is directly supported by the source where the others are interpretations), and the second change as shown above. Please discuss here before reverting. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)