User:Abbeynick/1870 Missouri State Colored People's Educational Convention/Astrodynamic Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Abbeynick
 * User:Abbeynick/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * 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? It does
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? So far, but could use expansion on detai;s.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? It is concise.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Absolutely
 * Is the content added up-to-date? It is.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Yes, there is more info needed.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? No
 * Are there viewpoints that are over represented, or underrepresented? No, clear statement of event and its purpose.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? No, provides neutral and factual information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Yes, so far.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Yes
 * Are the sources current? Yes
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes, and nice word linked with a picture added to help describe the definition of normal schools.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? So far yes.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? "Normal school" should not be capitalized.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? Yes
 * Are images well-captioned? Yes
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations? Yes
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? using a word link. Yes.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * 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 is three, but I don't if there many others. A quick turned up same ones.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary info boxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? Absolutely
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? No

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? It could use more work with links to similar subjects
 * What are the strengths of the content added? Detailed information about when and why the convention was held.
 * How can the content added be improved? More details of what happened during the meeting could be added. More detailed information could be linked with use of footnotes.