User:Angelina lee20/Bulgarian Women's Progressive Union/I am kenough Peer Review

General info
Angelina lee20
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I believe this is a new article. There's an existing wiki but it's for a related organization: Bulgarian Women's Union
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Angelina lee20/Bulgarian Women's Progressive Union :
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * User:Angelina lee20/Bulgarian Women's Progressive Union :
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead:
The draft still needs a lead section, just a sentence or two providing an overview of what the The Bulgarian Union of Progressive Women is. For instance, was it a workers organization for female workers or did they fight for feminist ideals as well? What years was it active? Did they have a main leader? What were their goals?

Content:
In several sections, there is a lot of use of in-text citations and quotes. Preferably, I think it would sound more like a Wikipedia article if the authors paraphrased what the academic sources said, instead of just quoting their words directly. I'd also remove the in-text citations (for example "Nestorova, 1996, p. 520") because I've never seen them on actual Wikipedia entries, they usually leave their citations in the footnotes. These changes would help their entry look more like a Wiki page instead of an academic paper.

Other than that, I believe the content is solid, it explains where the organization comes from, what activities they engaged in, and how they impacted women's civic and societal rights in Bulgaria.

Tone and Balance:
The tone appears to be very informative and neutral until the Conclusion paragraph. I'd try to find a way to edit it to make it sound less like a persuasive essay at the end and more Wikipedia-style with unbiased writing.

Other than that, the writing is well balanced, especially considering there isn't too much information out there. I think it has a good balance of historical context, organization activities, and its impact on Bulgaria as a whole.

References:
The 2 references included appear to be good, one's fairly recent and the other one is from 2008, plus both links open and work. I think ideally it would be great if they could find at least 1 or 2 more sources but I also understand that if it's a Bulgarian organization, those academic sources may not be as accessible because of language and location barriers. Still, I'd check and see if any of the sources of the Bulgarian Women's Union wikipedia page can be useful when citing stuff about the organization that they separated from.

Organization:
I would limit the number of headings and just keep the important ones so it doesn't look like a ton of headings with small paragraphs. I think sub-headings could be good for topics that are more related to each other, like the organization's activities, goals, influence, challenges, etc grouped together under one major header.

Specifically, I'd suggest removing the "Conclusion" heading because I've never seen that on a wikipedia page, just academic papers. The writing can be combined onto the "Aftermath and Enduring Legacy" section.