User:Becca lee127/Bluestocking/Vli66 Peer Review

I thought these peer edits were extremely helpful as I do need to run over the article for more grammatical issues. As far as citations go, I will do my best to clarify the citations and make them more universally understandable and sure the links work. Thanks for the feedback!

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Becca Lee
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:Becca lee127/sandbox (This peer review is also found in the talk page of the sandbox)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No, but it should add a citation in the second paragraph.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * It is concise, but I think could be edited to be shorter.

Lead evaluation
There's some grammar issues, but that's about it. Change the last sentence of the first paragraph to lowercase the word bluestockings and also change "radically" to "radical". Read over the second paragraph to make it flow more smoothly.

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?
 * Yes, it's a little bit strange but some of the citations are numbered "a" and "b" so that should be changed.

Content evaluation
A minor edit, but the citations should be changed. The rest is okay.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * No
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Tone and balance evaluation
I think the tone is pretty balanced, the lead is the only part that seems a little bit biased but it should be okay.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * No, some content could use some more citing. Also some of the sources don't have a link.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * I think more sources could be added.
 * Are the sources current?
 * The sources are varied, understandably.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Sources and references evaluation
The sources and references aren't that great, and could be added to.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes, but it can easily be adjusted. I noted what should be fixed in the lead evaluation.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Organization evaluation
The organization of the article is fine.

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?
 * It tells more about the background of the bluestockings.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It can be improved by fixing some of the grammar.

Overall evaluation
I think the main part of the article that needs to be fixed are the citations, but besides that it looks fine.