Talk:1843 National Convention of Colored Citizens

Whose work are you reviewing? Parkerlamont Link to draft you're reviewing:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Parkerlamont/1843_National_Convention_of_Colored_Citizens

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? Yes, but I think this article is not yet completed. Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The lead is concise. Lead evaluation- I think the lead is very straight-forward and concise! I would change the dates of the convention to be from the 15-19th of August, instead of listing each individual date.

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? Some content is missing, but I believe the article is not yet complete. Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes, this article represents a convention for colored people in the United States, which is a minority.

Is the content added neutral? Yes Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? No Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No

Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes Are the sources current? Yes Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Yes, a mix of races and viewpoints. Check a few links. Do they work? Yes

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Yes 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, it is broken up very nicely.

Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes, only one. Maybe add another so readers can visualize the convention. I picture it as crowded as a concert, but this could be wrong. Are images well-captioned? Yes. The only picture in the article is of a person and it contains the person's name. If any other pictures were to be added, they should have a short caption explaining it. Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? I believe so. I do not know how to check. Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Yes. Maybe put a picture higher up in the article because it looks boring from the start.

Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? Yes How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? There are eight sources, which I believe is a good amount of sources. 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 follows this format very well. Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No, some important names are bolded, but there are no links to other articles.

Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? There has not been any more added content since it was first created. However, what I have read seems pretty accurate and unbiased. The article will be more complete when all the sections are finished. What are the strengths of the content added? This article is very informative and nicely split up. I do not feel like any of the paragraphs are too long and it was easy for me to follow along. I did not have any questions about the convention because the ideas were so clearly laid out in the article. How can the content added be improved? When the events of each day of the convention are continued, focus on only highlighting the important parts of it. I was reading the events on the first day of the convention, and got a little bored. Do not feel the need to write long paragraphs about each day. Also, add more information to the closing box. I thought the article ended fairly quickly and the impact of this convention could be expanded upon more.