User:Bane117/Revisionist Maximalism/Sgm123445 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Bane117


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bane117/Revisionist_Maximalism?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
From looking at the edit history of the article, it seems that Bane117 moved content to the main article, but another user, Kendon Fahr, deleted it. The student user added 276 words and the outside user removed them, saying, "Unsourced, not part of the quote, wrong chronological order"

I used the edit history to compare the revisions, and saw that the content. It seems like the main issue is that Bane117 forgot to include the source. I looked at the bibliography and saw that they have multiple decent sources, and I recommend finding an additional primary source, or reuse a citation already present in the article. I would recommend being aware of where the information is inserted into the already existing content to avoid it being taken down again.The content in the draft is useful and belongs in the live article, just remember to source it there as well.

Updated Peer Review (5/4/2023)
I just wanted to take another look at this draft since there has since been more content added :)

I think the content the user has in the sandbox looks good, however I would suggest some organizational changes. I think perhaps a subheading under "History" titled "Abba Ahimier," where the information specifically about him lives. The beginning of the current history section reads like a biography of the creator instead of history of the topic as a whole so I think breaking it into subsections would help with clarity and organization. I think the added information to the Lead is helpful. I would not delete what is already in the original article, but add that additional information to it. Definitely take advantage of Wikilinks to help direct people to other articles when you reference complicated concepts. I do not have enough background knowledge on this subject (though I did look at the sources) so feel free to ignore this next point, but I would be wary of calling it a "right-wing" ideology unless you are able to cite multiple, ideally primary, sources declaring it as such. I think calling it a militant ideology is enough, and I am just suggesting this since left and right wing definitions vary depending on location and time.

I did not notice any grammatical errors and the tone feels neutral.

Looking at the original article existing in the mainspace, it is lacking primary sources. I do not see anything referencing a source from the 1930s. Perhaps something like original writing from Abba Ahimier or prominent figures could be found on a website like JSTOR. This type of material would be very beneficial when it comes to expanding the "Ideology" section.

My final suggestion is to add a section titled "Reception" to lengthen the article. I would be interested to know how other groups at the time or political figures reacted to this thinking or published responses.