User:Alardne1/Alexandra Kollontai/Aboardm1 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

alardne1


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alardne1/Alexandra_Kollontai?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Alexandra Kollontai

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Atinuke! Here is my peer review for your contribution to the Alexandra Kollontai article.

Overall, I really liked this addition to the article. The content you added is relevant to the article and clearly articulated. The incorporation of Kollontai’s work helped me to better understand the information that you provide. The secondary source that you use is accurately represented in the addition, and the tone is neutral throughout the section. I would suggest perhaps finding another secondary source, since it seems that you only use one. Another suggestion may be to add a “Marriage” subsection, or something similar, to the Contributions to Marxist Feminism section, ,since you add a substantial amount to the information already in the article. There are a few grammatical errors, but overall, the article is clear and succinct. There is a more detailed review below that answers the Wiki peer review guiding questions.

Content
Guiding questions:

Is the content added relevant to the topic?

I find the content to be relevant in the larger context of the article. It is a very interesting section and contribution. The content elaborates on Kollontai’s views of marriage and domestic labor in an ideal Marxist feminist society.

Is the content added up-to-date?

All content appears to be recent by viewing sources that were added.

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

I think that all of the content that was added does belong in the article. I think one part of the article that could be elaborated on is the following sentence: “She advocated for a transformed marriage that would be compatible with many other social relations.” It would provide more clarity to provide an example of these other social relations.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:

Is the content added neutral?

The content is neutral.

I think tone could be somewhat improved with a reworking of this sentence: “Rather than viewing the tasks that were traditionally reserved for women as productive labor, Kollontai believed that housework stood in the way of industrialization and modernization and that under a fully realized communist society, industrial mechanization would ultimately replace so-called women's work”. The sentence itself is neutral, but it is quite long and may be better understood if it is broken up.

Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No.

Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:

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

The article makes use of primary sources (theory written by the subject of the article) and secondary sources.

'''Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)'''

From skimming through the sources, the information that you add seems to accurately reflect the sources.

Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

Only one secondary source appears to be cited in the added section. I think it may add some more credibility to the addition if other sources are cited, as well. There appears to be a decent amount of available literature on Alexandra Kollontai and her work that has been produced in recent years from a quick Google search (although I don’t know how relevant it may be). I am not sure if this is strictly necessary, since you cite the primary source directly..

Are the sources current?

The secondary sources are current.

'''Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?'''

There is one secondary source used, perhaps more could be used to back up the author’s information.

'''Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)'''

The sources were appropriately sourced and reputable

'''Check a few links. Do they work?'''

Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:

Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

yes

Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

There are some grammatical errors

Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

The content that was added is well organized and fits the flow of the section. Because the addition lengthens the amount that marriage is discussed, significantly, perhaps a subheading under the “Contributions to Marxist Feminism” heading could be added. This would more easily direct readers to the discussion on marriage and showcase Kollontai’s significant contributions to Marxist feminism through theorizing about marriage and domestic labor more clearly.