User:Angelina lee20/Bulgarian Women's Progressive Union/Nollyrolypoly Peer Review

General info
Angelinelee20-- Bulgarian Women's Progressive Union
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Angelina lee20/Bulgarian Women's Progressive Union - Wikipedia
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):N/A

Lead
There is not a lead that introduces the article. The article begins with background information. While this background information is important, a brief summary of the article's contents provided in a Lead would be a positive addition.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * yes
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The "Background" and "Historical Context and Formation" sections are very similar together. They could be joined together to make one section. There is some information that is repeated.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * yes

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * content is neutral for the most part; however, the conclusion is opinionated. It does not keep the same neutral tone that is seen throughout the article. It does not need to be entirely rewritten but only needs some minor changes in regards to word choice.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * no

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * most of the sections are backed up by reliable secondary source information, but if possible, citing evidence for sections such as "Activities and Influence" and "Challenges and Achievements" would help to make the page stronger
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * yes
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * yes, the sources are relevant. Although there are three sources listed, two of which are from the same source. I recommend using a few more sources that are different from each other in order to elevate the page.
 * Are the sources current?
 * first source is from 2015 and the second is from 1375
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * the two sources listed are very different from one another
 * yes
 * 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.)
 * try going through the database to find some more articles that are peer-reviewed
 * 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?
 * content is well written and is clear and concise
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * there are a few grammatical errors. Some commas are forgotten such as "However this was certainly not the..." should be However, this was certainly no the..." Therefore, I'd recommend going through the article and just eliminating these minor grammatical errors. There are not any major ones that distract from the article.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * yes the content is well-organized. It's broken down in almost a timeline fashion. Well done!

Images and Media N/A
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * There are 2 reliable sources. I'd recommend adding a third source.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * no
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * yes
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * yes

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * yes
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * content is very good and organized. great job.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * some things are repetitive, so remove that in order to make it more concise. Additionally, a lead would only make the article stronger. The conclusion is not in a neutral tone. Add more sources. Go over the article so that it is in more of a scholarly tone and eliminate minor grammatical errors.