User:Ander0056/Ezell Blair Jr./Frivelyn Peer Review

General info
Ander0056
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Ander0056/Ezell Blair Jr.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Ezell Blair Jr.

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it are relevant. (Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

CONTENT:

-content was relevant to the topic

-source used is 20 years old, but it is a known historical event, so it is okay.

-Information looks all there to me, but maybe more could be added about the sit-ins?

TONE AND BALANCE:

-it is neutral

-no bias

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

-I feel like all sources are reliable, but I am not sure about the upfront.scholastic.com one. Usually sources that have a ".com" ending are not scholarly. I would just double check if you haven't already.

-I would also go back through and add your citations into your paragraphs - I don't see any.

-Some sources are old, but information is credible

-Sources do not have multiple authors.

ORGANIZATION

-Information is very easy to read

-There are grammatical errors, but if you put it through a free grammar checker, it should fix that right up.

-I feel like there could be a bigger designated section to the sit-ins rather than putting it into the early life section

OVERALL

-What you added was good

-Strengths: I now know more about the legacy and early life.

-Improvements: The only one I would suggest focusing on is adding the sit-in's own section.