This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The article states:
The result was a model of what Reconstruction could have been.
I think the statement needs rewriting, or at least a citation.
It feels like a wish-fulfillment argument ("could have been").
It would be more accurate to say that Reconstruction was quite different from Port Royal, therefore the Port Royal Experiment was not a model of what it could have been, only a model of what was hoped for.
I am not a scholar of the period so I will leave this for others.
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Earlier versions of the article stated that "many" former slave masters assisted in setting up schools and even became teachers to the freed slaves. Surprising as that claim is, it is in fact supported by the cited source. Later versions of the article revised "many" to "some" and then to "few" while keeping the citation. This makes no sense, as it contradicts what the cited source says. I've revised to change "few" back to "many," but I also added "reportedly," since we can't necessarily take one book from 1919 as gospel truth regarding events that took place two generations earlier. 72.224.241.46 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
