User:Jrhassing20/Flint sit-down strike/CravenKitten429 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Wikifun22 and Jrhassing20's article on the Flint Sit-down strike


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Editing User:Jrhassing20/Flint sit-down strike - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Flint sit-down strike - Wikipedia

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.)

Lead- has been left untouched because there is not much more that can be added.

Content and Tone- The content added is presented in a neutral tone without taking any sides and there are no major issues. However, it is difficult to determine which content was added because the layout of the sandbox is the same as the article itself so one has to take it apart. I did attempt to see the history to see if it was easier to view changes there but either it is not possible, or I just couldn't figure it out. However, the content that was found did add to the overall article and helped show underrepresented viewpoints. It stuck with Wikipedia's editing criteria very well.Sources and References- The links to the sources work as intended and the sources used are credible. The variety of sources helps represent different viewpoints of the event, but the information used remains neutral or as neutral as possible. The sources provided all if not most of the additional information (although the information was changed to fit Wikipedia's policy). Some sources were current in that they were written a while after the event had happened but there are also sources used that were much closer to the time of the event. Despite the large difference in the time the sources provide valuable information on the event and are written by credible authors that got their works peer-reviewed.

Organization- The organization of the content is laid out how the article was initially laid out. Addressing my previous comment about making it difficult to see which information was added it is very nice how the added content is spread out and added into its corresponding section. Any content was added into already established sections and fit the section well without any grammatical errors.

Images and Media- no new photos added just used photos that were originally in the article. Adding some new photos might help like photos that showcase images of the strike but they would need to be unbiased without picking a side.