User:Briannamck8/Role of women in Nicaraguan Revolution/GamersRightsActivist Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Briannamck8
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Role of women in Nicaraguan Revolution

Proposed Edits

 * I agree completely with your plan to actually attach citations to the end of statements.
 * The article is already about women in the revolution, so a heading of "Women in the armed struggle" seems unneccessary. If you keep it, maybe offset it with another heading about noncombat work? Or add a section comparing the actions of women prior to the revolution, during, and after.
 * I agree with your idea to add more Latin American sources
 * And pictures are important.
 * The information already in the article is fairly good, the main problems are that none of it is cited, and that its somewhat unorganized. Reorganizing the "Feminist Ideology" heading chronologically might be good.

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * no
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Not really, and it feels like the introductory paragraph to an argumentative essay
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Yes, but they aren't very Wikipedia-y. Again, they feel like they belong in an essay, not a wikipedia article
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * no
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * fairly concise but the language is not what should be on wikipedia

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes. You add some good additional information, such as the "nurture law"
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * No

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * No
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There're a pair of very strange sentences under Female CounterRevolutionaries that says "all women who were counterrevolutionaries did so out of personal experiences and not ideology, and also some did it because of men" The second sentence doesn't really need to be there (or could be reworded), and has problematic aspects (that these women don't have political beliefs and are only following men). And also *all* female counterrevolutionaries only acted so because of personal strife? I really don't think you can substantiate such a broad claim.
 * Also under female counterrevs, you kind of slide into what i want to dub "essay-speak". "While many people would have been opposed to uniting with their enemies, former or present" is really not needed in Wikipedia. Just talk about the AMVW, you don't need to preface it with the "reaching across the aisle" stuff
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * It kind of feels like you're trying to remove any blame for counterrevolutionary women?

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * no, i added citations needed tags for unsubstantiated claims.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Doesn't seem like it, you use source 1 a lot
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * It feels like you keep making points/arguments that belong in essays. Just stick to the facts, don't try to argue for anything.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

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


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * Yes
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * Somewhat? The caption might be better if it described what the protest was for/what the form of protest was. Why does that women have a bass drum? Was that common in Nicaraguan protests?
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes, good job with the creative commons
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * yes

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is 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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * There's a lot more to it
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * You've added good information further delving into the struggle of women
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Don't argue for a point, don't persuade. Write neutrally.