User:Parkerlamont/1843 National Convention of Colored Citizens/Myricks6 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

 * Reviewing Parker Paramore and Sophia Goodlife
 * Username : parkerlamont
 * Reviewing 1843 National Convention of Colored Citizens
 * Link : User:Parkerlamont/1843 National Convention of Colored Citizens

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?

Lead evaluation
The introductory sentence in your lead provides a clear description what the article will be about. The brief description of the article's major sections is there, although the condensation of the description into a single sentence threw me at first. From what I could see, the lead does not include any information that is not also present in the article.

However, in "Background" it is references that "men from Philadelphia proposed a revival of the conventions" and there is no mention of prior conventions in the lead or "Background" before this. A quick search of Wikipedia shows this article detailing the Colored Conventions Movement, which this 1843 was a part of. This information is not present in the lead and should be.

There are a few grammatical errors in your lead ("of the anti-slavery" as opposed to "in the anti-slavery ; there should be a comma before "such as" and following "Samuel Davis" ; "help African Americans" should be "to help African Americans"), but your lead is well written and fits well within the guidelines given.

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?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content is relevant to the topic and up-to-date. There does not seem to be content that is missing that has not already been planned for and there does not appear to be content that does not belong. The article deals with a Wikipedia equity gap. As noted in the lead section, a "revival of conventions" is noted multiple times in the article without reference to any prior conventions. This leaves readers aware there is information they are missing. A paragraph concerning the Colored Conventions Movement would clear this up. Overall, though, the content of the article was well curated and organized in a way that allows readers to learn the information necessary to understand the 1843 Convention of Colored Citizens.

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 content added was neutral. There are no claims that appear heavily biased. As it is a presentation of an event, there are not multiple viewpoints that need to be presented. The content itself does not attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or another, however the tone of the article does. The article reads like an academic article that is attempting to analyze the information presented as opposed to an encyclopedia article that is just trying to present information. It actually reads like a well organized and properly cited version of one of the quizzes we've written for class.

Additionally, there are many instances of unnecessary reiteration or non-clarified use of two somewhat similar words that make the article read as if it is working toward a word count:


 * "a convention and assembly"
 * "individuals and representatives"
 * "The circumstances and contextual background"
 * "Unfortunately, however,"
 * "a new group of black leaders different than those of past conventions"
 * "A meeting of colored citizens met"
 * "was attended by citizens. In this session, three people gave speeches to the general citizens gathered"
 * "school of Oneida Theological Institute"
 * "assemblies and gatherings"
 * "the main goal of all black citizens should be to 'make known our wrongs to the world and our oppressors.' The movement to free the African American people should be led by African Americans."

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?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
The article appeared to be backed by reliable primary and secondary sources of information. The sources appeared to represent both the contemporary literature from 1843 and the modern literature available. The sources were written predominated by African Americans who attended the event in 1843, which is fitting given the particular ability this article has to highlight marginalized voices. The links the sources I checked did work.

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 article was well organized. The sections were broken down into easy-to-digest chunks that made sense both thematically and chronologically.

However, the article was very difficult to read. There were many grammatical errors. The tenses switched back and forth between present and past more than once. There were two sentences I was not able to understand at all. I have noted as many of these grammatical errors as I could clearly see below. I figured it was better for me to note them now rather than have them noted and cause a lower grade on a final submission. Most notes are grammatical, but there are fives notes marked with ** that indicate either that I was unsure of what you were saying an attempted to clarify it or could not understand at all what you were trying to say.

Background Section :


 * "the introducing of the Liberty Party" should be "the introduction of the Liberty Party"
 * "and combine efforts" should be "and to combine efforts"
 * "Efforts to combine groups in places like New York and Philadelphia was" should be "Efforts to combine groups in places like New York and Philadelphia were"
 * "In 1841 men" should be "In 1841, men"
 * "ensued a riot" should be "caused a riot"
 * "by a common goal in which they were "...Against TWO" should be "by a common goal "...Against TWO"
 * "set to extend a period of several days" should be "set to occur over a period of several days"

Convention Proceedings :


 * "host the colored convention this year and to host it in Buffalo, NY" should be "host the colored convention in 1843 in Buffalo, NY"
 * "there was Liberty" should be "there was liberty"
 * "and following his" should be "and, following his"
 * "An early meeting adjourned" should be "An early meeting opened" unless there was a meeting before this session that ended before the session began?
 * "Following their appointment, the chair appoints, officers for the convention and a committee record the names of the delegates." I actually don't understand what you're trying to say here? I'm so sorry. **
 * "After the appointments, the motion to allow for areas with no delegates to be represented by the gentleman who attended from that area." I also don't understand this sentence. Again, I'm so sorry. **
 * In "August 15, 1843 : Proceedings afternoon session" the entire paragraph is written in the present tense. Until this point, you have only used past tense. This entire section should be written in past tense.

Key Figures :


 * "Davis set the keynote" should be "Davis gave the keynote speech" (at least I assume that is what this is in reference to?) **
 * "Henry Garnet grew up having been born into slavery and escaping to" should be "Henry Garnet was born into slavery and escaped to" **
 * "where slavery was less tolerant" should be "where slavery was less tolerated"
 * "In 1834 Garnet" should be "In 1834, Garnet"
 * "further pursued interests in serious anti-slavery" should be "pursued interests in serious anti-slavery"
 * "struggled between balancing" should be "struggled with balancing" or "struggled to balance"

Speeches :


 * "Samuel Davis." (the section title) should be "Samuel Davis" without a period
 * "Samuel Davis set the keynote and convention in motion" should be "Samuel Davis gave the keynote address and set the convention in motion" **
 * "recognize any rights to blacks" should be "recognize any rights for Blacks"
 * "currently subordinate to oppressive law" should be "currently subordinated to oppressive law"
 * "The recent history of various African American factions that have" should be "The contemporary conflicts between various African American factions that had" (past tense is necessary)
 * In accordance with modern writing convention, Blacks should be capitalized each time it is used in this section

Outcomes of the Convention :


 * "drove many other conventions into action" should be "drove many other groups to host conventions"
 * "After, this convention many" should be "After this convention, many"

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?

Images and media evaluation
The image used was interesting and placed properly within the article. It was well captioned and adhered to Wikipedia's copyright regulations (as far as i could tell).

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?

New Article Evaluation
The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements. From my perspective, the sources appear to be accurate represent the literature available. The inclusion of the minutes of the convention and transcriptions of the speeches given shows a desire to accurately present the convention itself, while the use of modern articles analyzing the political climate of 1843 shows a desire to connect the convention itself to the historical context surround it. The article went into significantly more depth than any others I could find concerning the Colored Conventions Movement and the organization seemed accurate.

The article does not link to other articles.

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?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I enjoyed the article. The information presented was something completely new to me and it was fun to learn about! I enjoyed learning something new and I think you're absolutely on the right track. The biggest strength of your article is the clear dedication to research and accuracy. Research wise, the article feels like something that could be cited in academic papers.

However, like noted above, the article is difficult to read. I'm sorry if I was too hard with noting grammatical errors, but I wanted to help in every way I could.

There is the skeleton of an amazing article here! There is fantastic research and detailed information. It reads like a genuine lesson. Yes, it needs is to be cleaned up around the edges, but that's all it's lacking. I fully believe you're going to have a wonderful Wikipedia worthy article by the end of the semester!