User:GROSSKRE8792/American Anti-Slavery Society/Skibinsm0505 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

 * GROSSKRE8792
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:GROSSKRE8792/sandbox

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Content evaluation
The content added brings a new perspective and gives more depth than the original, which has a brief and sparse overview. Helps bring a more focused attention to important details. In the section, "The Society", is there a first name for Garrison mentioned anywhere? And in "background", it would be a good idea to add "president" before James Madison, or will that be a linked name?

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The updated content is written straight and neutral, only providing the facts and not building to push and bias or narrative. The one question I raise is that from "Background", is the passage "integration was impossible, because there would always be oppression, hatred, and hostility between former slaves and former slave holders", based from a secondary or primary source?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All sources are from reputable and scholarly sites and focus on the topic.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The majority of the writing was clear and error free. Ideas were written out well and easy to follow. A few changes could be made to on sentence. In "Background", the passage" He advocated for resettlement of former slaves to the west coast of Africa. Later this founded Liberia." Could be rewritten as such:

He advocated for resettlement of former slaves to the west coast of Africa, which lead to the founding of Liberia".

Capitalization for both American Colonization Society and American Anti-Slavery Society. Does the General Anti-Slavery Convention require quotation marks?

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


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

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?