User:Autumnhedgehog/La Revue de Monde Noir/Eagleresistance Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Autumnhedgehog


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Autumnhedgehog/La Revue du Monde Noir


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: use bold for "La Revue Du Monde Noir" in your opening sentence- have a look at other Wikipedia pages, they all do this.

- The introductory sentence clearly describes what La Revue du Monde Noir is (a periodical), who created it, where and when. However, what does "La Revue du Monde Noir" mean, in English? A translation would be beneficial!

- The lead does provide a brief description of the article's main points, such as the negritude movement (within the heading "Historical Context"). The lead also mentions the anti-imperialist movement, which isn't mentioned in the article (maybe it will be included in the "article body" section?).

- If you wanted to expand your article, you could tell us a little bit about its founders?

- I'm a little bit confused because in the lead paragraph, it said that one of the primary focuses of the publication was "anti-colonial politics", yet under the heading "Controversy," it's noted that the publication positioned itself as "apolitical". I understand that the publication had motivations for claiming to be cultural and not political, but maybe the lead paragraph could recognize this disconnect?

- "Black consciousness" is also mentioned in the lead paragraph and in the "historical context" section but only in overt ways- for someone who is not familiar with the term, it might be beneficial to explain it, or make a definitive mention of it within the article.

-The lead paragraph gets quite specific in its concerns with monoculture farming in Haiti, art and eugenics, and none of these topics appear elsewhere in the article. Again, perhaps they will be included in the "article body" section? Regardless, I think it might be beneficial to take a more general approach in your lead paragraph, by reducing "Monoculture farming in Haiti" to something broader, such as "farming practices"... And be sure to include all of these items within the body of your article (farming, art, eugenics).

- The last two words of your lead paragraph, "and more", you might consider expanding upon or just deleting?

- Overall, your lead paragraph does give a good sense of what the article is about, but I think it is too detailed. The statements could be broader and everything you mention in the lead paragraph ought to appear later in the article as well.

Content:

- The content is relevant to the topic and appears to be up-to-date.

- As mentioned previously, I feel there is content missing and wonder if it will be included within the "Article Body" section (which is currently empty using this link).

- I also challenge you to bring a more feminist lens to this article! After reading through some of your sources, Nardal seems to be very aware of gendered inequality, not just racial, and I wonder how this was approached through the publication, if at all?

- Under "Historical Context," I find myself asking, how did the journal further the development of both perspective? And what are the perspectives?

- The heading "Controversy" is very informative and descriptive. My only suggestion would be to combine the last two sentences for flow, something like, "Ultimately, all of this controversy led to a loss of funding, and after only six months in circulation/ print, forced the periodical to shut down/ end..."

- The article addresses topics related to underrepresented populations- namely, members of the global Black community. But what about Black women?

Tone and Balance:

- The article does an excellent job of remaining neutral throughout. I didn't feel that any of the information presented was biased. An example of this is where you discuss how the periodical was cultural and not political but the "contents included some articles which were politically subversive", which could appear biased, but you follow this sentence up by explaining that there were articles published with political undertones.

- I didn't feel any viewpoints were overrepresented but appear well balanced.

- I didn't feel persuaded while reading the article- I felt like I was reading facts.

Sources and References:

- All content is backed up by reliable secondary sources. The sources seem thorough, relevant, diverse and up-to-date.

- The two links available worked.

- It seems that the article's content does reflect the source information well but might want to include more information for a more dynamic representation of the topic.

Organization:

- The content of the article is well-written and easy to read. I just feel like I want more!

- I've made a couple suggestions regarding sentence structure (mentioned above) and some minor issues as follows:

lead paragraph, after "around the world," add a comma

first paragraph under "Historical Context," last sentence- "This focus is in fitting with the periodical's aims..." I'd delete the word "in"

second paragraph under "Historical Context," last sentence- "...sense of pride in their racial identity" ?

- The overall organization of the article might benefit from starting with the historical context and then bringing in the motto section? This will also depend on the "Article Body" section, but I think having the history after the motto is a bit disjointed without historical context leading up to the creation of the publication and its motto.

New Articles:

- Yes, this article is notable, in the sense that it has 5 secondary sources independent of the subject.

- I looked at a number of Wikipedia pages written on feminist/ historical periodicals. Most follow a similar pattern that includes a "History" heading and then some form of "Issues" heading. There were a few with "Contributors" heading, as well as an "Impact" heading. See "WomanSpirit" for one example.

- Also, it might be worth considering adding "(periodical)" after your title, as I see many other Wikipedia pages based on periodicals have done.

- Where you have provided a list of names under "Contributors," cold you add the title or theme of each volume instead of just Volume 1, 2, 3 etc.? Could you add the title and type of contribution they made to each issue?

- The page links to many other Wikipedia pages.

Overall Impressions:

This article appears to do a good job on all the technical elements required to publish a Wikipedia article (I think, anyways!). The biggest suggestion I have is that I want more information! I think this periodical was important not only for racial equality but also gendered equality, considering who it's editor was. I think a feminist perspective would enrich this article and really beef up why this periodical was important. Overall, well written and I learned a lot about a periodical I never knew existed!