User:Coconut818/Women in conservatism in the United States/Ivy&Fern2003 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

@cocnut818 @Gobears12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * link
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Women in conservatism in the United States

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall Impressions: Mostly, content suggestions, with some organizational changes. References, pictures, and other Wiki links seem good!

Organization: Goldwater campaign: the organization is good. The last two paragraph don't really fit within the Goldwater campaign heading so maybe adding another subsection could be helpful in breaking up the info.

Tone: Goldwater campaign: the tone is neutral and doesn't try to convince the reader of any specific stance.

Content: For the Goldwater campaign section all the links to the current wiki articles are great, if you are interested in adding more: traditionalism, anticommunism, and skepticism could be great additions. Would it be beneficial to add anything about how these women are mostly white, it says middleclass suburban but they were mostly white-- idk if that detail should be added i just wanted to point it out. Is there a reason why southern california was a source of conservatism, just wondering...

It could be helpful to include a little more detail somewhere in the article about the religious nature of conservative women, it's very briefly mentioned but adding more detail might be helpful.

Aliza section: I am a little confused on how the survey findings relate to conservative pushback to Metoo. It's important info but adding a connection to how those survey findings affect women of different political parties and how they relate to MeToo should be added for clarity.

More details should be added about Barrett's specific conservative values/why she is considered conservative as its a section about women in conservatism and not all about Barrett. Clearer language about Barrett's views would be helpful.

References: Overall, the references seem to be structured correctly. There does seem to be the same sources cited multiple times, only cite it once in the references page. Reference 15, the Vogue article, might be bordering on what's an acceptable/peer reviewed source... would double check that.

Mama Grizzlies: after going back and forth I am pretty sure that the middle paragraph is what is being added to the main wiki page. That said a few more intext citations might be helpful, even if it is all from the same source.