User:Angelina lee20/Bulgarian Women's Progressive Union/Quercus46 Peer Review

General info
Username: Angelina lee20
 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bulgarian Women's Progressive 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)
 * N/A

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.)

Hi, your wiki article was so interesting to read! Here's my peer review below:

Lead

The lead/background section looks great. I believe the first quotation is missing the ending quotations mark ("), so that may be something to consider in your future edits. I think you do a great job summarizing the rise of the Bulgarian Union of Progressive of Women. I would advise against writing "played a critical role" as it may seem not neutral. I would suggest for the lead/first sentence to start by specifically defining the Bulgarian Union of Progressive Women, so readers understand what it is before you go on to explain the Bulgarian Women’s Union and the background leading to its formation. Perhaps this can be done by moving the second to last sentence’s information to the beginning, as that sentence is very clear in outlining what the Union of Progressive Women is.

I think it would also be helpful to connect the sections below, and mention their relevance in the intro section, so readers have a greater overview. This may be done by touching on the Union’s goals and activities in your lead section, so readers are aware that this will be further expanded on below.

Content

Regarding your other sections, they were really nice to read! I did realize that some places are not cited correctly, such as the section in historical context. You do have the sources inputted in via parenthetical citations, but there's no actual Wikipedia footnote. (That can be done through hitting the top bar's quotations button so you can link it through Wikipedia's citations, and it can appear under your references at the bottom. You'll be able to input the pages you used directly through Wikipedia's citations, so you would no longer need to do parenthetical citations! I think it may also be helpful to first define or explain who the people are (regarding the ones who's arguments are used). I have never heard of Krassimira Daskalova and Tatyana Nestorova before and had to look them up, so it may be beneficial to write who they are. (Ex. Bulgarian biographer and professor of European Cultural History, Krassimira Daskalova). Although I would advise less on quoting their arguments but instead summarizing them in a neutral way.

I would also advise on quoting less in general, and summarizing more, so it falls in line with Wikipedia's policies of avoiding plagiarism and neutrality. I notice there's quite some quotes, so it may be helpful to expand on that with your own words instead of using the authors'.

I enjoyed reading about the Union’s activities and their influence inside Bulgarian society, and I would love to hear more about that if there’s more information in your secondary sources. This may be a possible avenue to expand on. For example, perhaps writing more on how they specifically pushed for women’s suffrage and what types of activism they partook in.

Tone

I would be wary of using words like "was critical" (also used in your section, Challenges and Achievements). Other sentences like, "The long-term impact of the Union's advocacy may be seen in substantial advances in women's rights in Bulgaria, particularly in the mid-twentieth century" and "This landmark reflects the Union's early work and its critical role in influencing the trajectory of gender equality in Bulgaria," as well as "In conclusion, the Bulgarian Union of Progressive Women was more than an organization; it was a sign of change in a society battling conventional conventions and new beliefs."

These words make the article appear not neutral, so perhaps you can switch certain words to a more unbiased language fitting the "encyclopedic" tone for Wikipedia. The article appears heavily biased to the organization and at times reads more like an academic essay. Your ending section presents your article as an argument ("In conclusion, the Bulgarian Union of Progressive Women was more than an organization; it was a sign of change in a society battling conventional conventions and new beliefs.), so I'd advise in swapping to some more neutral words! Otherwise, the content is very engaging and I enjoyed reading it. :)

Sources

Your sources look great! The one particularly from 2015 looks very interesting and the links all work. However, I do think there is a slight error under your References section as the 1st and 2nd sources are the same source. I would also advise on just checking your citations and avoid quoting too many sentences, so you do not get marked for plagiarism under Wikipedia's guidelines. (As I also mentioned in above for the Content Section)

Organization

Your content was great to read! I did notice some grammar errors, although this is more to do with citations (such as missing the back end of a quote, although I would advise against doing block quotations). For some citations, the footnote provided by Wikipedia is not at the exact backend of a sentence and instead is embedded to the next sentence or has additional spaces/separating a period, so that may be something to touch up on. I would also advise on changing the Conclusion Section’s title to something more neutral, so it reads as less of an argument.

Images and Media

If possible and under the copyright laws, I would advise on adding images. I feel like this would really enhance the understanding of the topics, perhaps some images of the leading women who worked on it or publications/posters/work that the Union produced.

For New Articles

This meets the Notability requirements, as there are 2 reliable secondary sources (I would recommend finding more if possible, and also touching up on the citations as it shows 3 sources when 2 are from the same source). If there’s more available literature, I would highly recommend you include those in, along with expanding on some sections! Your bibliography shows more sources than what is in the actual references page in the sandbox, so don't forget to add those in as well! :)

I think you do a great job on linking to other Wikipedia pages! (Such as with Clara Zetkin, Bulgarian Women’s Union, and August Bebel).

Overall Impressions

I enjoyed reading your article! I think it’s really neat that you are all creating a new article and providing newer education in Wikipedia. For improving the content, I would still refer to my earlier feedback above (touching up on incorrect quotations/grammar, fixing the 1st and 2nd sources as they are the same source under references, adding some media, aiming for neutrality, and expanding on sources if possible). Great job!