User:Coloradogal1440/Rainbow Coalition (Fred Hampton)/Tatinyc3 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Coloradogal1440

Whateveryou'llremember


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Coloradogal1440/Rainbow Coalition (Fred Hampton)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Rainbow Coalition (Fred Hampton)

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

Questions addressed:

Is the content add relevant to the topic?

The most addition I see to content added is in the "formation" section. I am a little confused on where this paragraph will be added in addition to what is already on the website or if it is meant to replace what is already there. Regardless, I find this new paragraph to be a great and informative piece to add here has it expands on the people who helped to bring this movement into existence besides Fred Hampton. I wonder if maybe they could specify 'new left' groups? Maybe even mention the ones that are already in the "lead"section?

is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

I think the information they added to the 'legacy' section is a good addition to what was written and how the contributions of this movement helped to aid Harold Washington in his political career as well. I wonder if they could elaborate on how it aided Barack Obama's career as well, similar to what they did with the addition of Harold Washington.

Is the content added neutral?

Reading through the new contributions, I found no bias or prejudice in their writing. I think what as been written would flow well with what is already on the current article.

is the content added well-written?

I found the new additions to be easy to understand. I thought it read easy and clearly with no parts that felt I was tripping over the words.

Is all the new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

From what I found, I believed they related their new information to their sources well. I found this to be specially true in their "formation" section. I think they backed up what they added well and it didn't seem that they wrote this section without solid evidence to back up this new information.