User talk:Barnes writer/Fugitive Slave Act of 1793/Bibliography

1.	What does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? The effects section of this article is very impressive and gives a ton of great information! 2.	What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement ? I suggest going back and checking the changes you made because right now it says you only contributed a word, so I think the information you had posted they flagged for some reason so maybe just check into that.

3.	What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think just adding more information and maybe adding subheadings under the two headings of excerpts and efforts. This may help to organize it and make it a bit of an easier read for people who check out this page.

4.	Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? I liked their affect section and definitely will use that to help me with my own article.

5.	Looking at the lead by itself do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Yes, you can definitely tell the importance of the topic

6.	Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? Yes, it does reflect the important information.

7.	Does the lead give more weight to certain parts of the article over others? Is anything missing? Is anything redundant? No, I think overall, it's a great lead.

8.	Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way? I think they're organized well maybe just adding in subheadings could help organize and make the page flow a little better.

9.	is each section's length equal to its importance to the articles subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off topic? I don't think any of the information is necessarily irrelevant I just think it could be organized a bit better either by adding subheadings or creating another section for some of the information. Overall, the information and length itself is good you guys have a lot of information so that's really great.

10.	Does the article reflect all perspectives represented in published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? Yes, I think the article does reflect all perspectives For the most part because this is an act, I feel like it's kind of hard to find other relevant information.

11.	Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, it was very unbiased

12.	Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? No, I don't think I could guess the perspective of the author just by reading the article.

13.	Are there any words or phrases that don't feel natural? No, I didn't see any that didn’t make it feel natural.

14.	Does the article make claims on behalf of unarmed groups or people? No, it doesn't.

15.	Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information remember, neutral doesn't mean “the best possible light” or “the worst, most critical light.” It means a clear reflection of various aspects of the topic. I think it does a good job not focusing on one or the other too much.Collinshannah78 (talk) 05:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)