Talk:Byram Cemetery

Cemeteries Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cemeteries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cemeteries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CemeteriesWikipedia:WikiProject CemeteriesTemplate:WikiProject CemeteriesCemeteries articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Peer Review - Maya

What does the article (or section) do well? The article does a really good job of concisely going through the history of the graveyard. The writing is very clear and easily conveys the information to the reader without confusion or opinion.

What changes would you suggest overall? Adding some background on where Greenwich is and what its history is could contextualize the article.Like adding a few sentences on Connecticut's slave laws and history etc.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? A small thing, but there are a few typos and grammatical errors. The Article is really well organized and those small finishing touches will bring it all together :)

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? The sections are organized really well! Particularly the "looking ahead" section, I want to add one to my own article now Mayaeinhorn (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Peer Review

What does the article (or section) do well? I think it covers background context well. The divvying up of the sections and how they came to be in the cemetery is insightful. Additionally, learning about the up to date (where it stands) in terms of preserving and maintaining the grounds is critical.

What changes would you suggest overall? Just a small thing first, in the paragraph "funding from the state" there is a misspelled funding as "funcing". Additionally, I'd add some specifics with some of the background, like when was the $5,000 approved? The Stewarts said they found no remains, but what was the conclusion of this conflict between them and the state? Who was in the right/wrong? - this isn't lucrative but could be helpful for closing any questions a reader may have.

What is the most important thing that the author could do to improve his/her contribution? Overall I think the background and overall the points spoken about are all relevant, they could just be expanded upon more - but they don't have to be, it gives a good snippet of information that isn't too much. - one more question I have is about the distinction of the Lyon part of the cemetery - is it just their family in that section? It must be small? maybe some background as to how big that section is could be helpful.

Did you glean anything from your classmate's work that could be applicable to your own? If so, let him/her know! I think I will add some outside information more in depth - meaning the part about the Stewarts was short and not necessarily pertinent to the history of the graveyard but it is informative and interesting to add. I have a piece within my article that includes some grievances over privatizing the land I am talking about that had some controversy with the State Park I may add. Chadams8 (talk) 12:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]