User:Contrerasbri/Ni una menos/Inesaceves23 Peer Review

General info
Contrerasbri
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Contrerasbri/Ni una menos
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ni una menos
 * Ni una menos

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hi Bri, below is my peer review for your article edits!

Is there a strong opening sentence or phrase?


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?

It looks like you have not added a new lead, but there’s no issue there. I have already read the existing article and the lead is a nearly perfect summary of what the article is going to cover. My only suggestion for the lead section would be to edit and add a sentence or two on the public’s/governments reactions to the rise of these movements!

Is there sufficient attention to the larger historical, cultural, or geographic context?

Yes, there is sufficient attention to the overall historical, cultural, and geographic context. You made sure to clarify what nations certain movements were occurring in, as well as what led up to it. I appreciated you adding political climates as well as individual home and economic states. It goes to show who was being affected, and if their place of resident was impacted worse because of their political leaders. The “Mexico” section could use additional information on who the political leaders/government was at this time and their actions to fight all the violence. Names would work great!

The statement you added in the diversity section that says “The movement’s diversity also plays into part as to why it has been successful and why it has been so widespread across Latin America,” sheds light on the geographic context. It does a great job at showing how well different nations worked together to fight against the same cause. Overall, across all the sections, there is sufficient attention to the larger state of historical, cultural, and geographic context.

Is there a broad framing of the topic and attention to other related Wikipedia pages?

From the initial read, there is minimal attention to other related wikipedia pages. It mainly focuses on the one already created for the “Ni Una Menos” movement and adding into the gaps.

Is there a strong organization and structure of the wiki?

Yes, there is a strong organization and structure to the wiki! You did a good job at adding a whole different country that was not in the original (Mexico)--highlights how the movements impacted different parts of Latin America.

Adding the “The Impact of the Ni Una Menos Movement within other movements” shows how intersectionality works in benefit of the greater picture. I think that including similar movements highlights how working together as a society can in fact make a difference and inspire others to join the movement despite it not affecting them directly.

The overall structure and organization of your wiki makes it very easy to follow, stay engaged, and in a sense knowing the timeline of what led to certain results and government involvement. Great job on the structure!

Are there a range of substantive and high-quality sources?

In terms of sources, there are only 5 (1 per paragraph added). Definitely I would say to add more in text citation so we can know where you got your information. A majority of your sources are current from the year 2023. Considering the movements you are talking about happened a few decades ago, perhaps look into articles and journals that are closer to the dates it was happening, like a current event article in those times. Sources #1 & #2 are fairly short and on a website, while the remaining ones are part of a book. Books tend to have more information, perspectives, and just more reliable information. Sources #3 & #5 stood out to me as it covers things like intersectionality and how the movements have shaped different generations. Overall, a majority of your sources are well-picked out!

Do these sources work well together to illuminate a topic in compelling ways?

It's not a scholarly article but your source called “Latin America’s Green Tide: Working women’s abortion access solidarity knows no borders” helps with your background info for the significance of the color green. Each of the sources are specific to the movements and significant symbols and they all are helpful in signaling the severity these movements reached at their respective times! I think what really gives your edits strength is your book source called “Terrorizing Women: Feminicide in the Americas”. It includes personal experiences and stories from activists during those times. It not only adds credibility, but it also sheds light on their honorable resilience.

Is there any biased language?

In terms of overall biased language in the edits, it is very minimal. You did a great job at describing the events in detail without making your personal opinion known! However, there are a few words here and there that seem a bit biased to me. In the “Mexico” section, the word “unfortunately” when you mention the COVID-19 pandemic, and descriptive words in general, add confusion in interpretation and make it personal. Maybe just stating COVID-19’s role in the movement would be just fine. Another suggestion I would say is that in your “Diversity” section, mentioning the #MeToo movement wasn’t mentioned in other parts of your edits so you can go without including it. Comparing and contrasting at the end gives the idea that you are personally in favor of one movement but not the other.

'''Any feedback on grammar and style? Is the language clear, accessible, and impartial?'''

Not really any feedback in terms of grammar. It all looks good to me. I did not catch any errors, but before submitting your final version, I would suggest reading it outloud to your teammates. The more you read your own work, the easier it will be to notice if something is off. Overall, great job on grammar and spelling. The style you wrote in is also proper and acceptable. You go straight into the point the heading is alluding to while not adding so much fluff. It is descriptive and expository as you are educating on a topic and are stating various facts and #’s.

Is the language clear, accessible, and impartial?

Overall, the language is clear and accessible in most areas. I was able to comprehend the points you were trying to get across during the first read with little to no confusion. However, in your “Diversity” section, it doesn’t seem 100% impartial.


 * EX:


 * “While other movements such as the #MeToo movement are critiqued for the lack of inclusion and taking into account structural issues such as race, the Ni Una Menos movement is able to address issues affecting women with a broader perspective…”


 * Although it is important to include all sides and possible involvements, it seemed to me like you made one movement look superior to the other.

Nonetheless, everything else in the edits was clear and easy to read/comprehend and analyze.

Are there visual materials?

In the edited version, there are no visual materials or images at all. Given that it is a large body of text, I think adding 2-3 images throughout would be very helpful to the reader. Before adding images though, be sure they adhere to wikipedia copyright guidelines! I would recommend adding an image for each of the movements that you mentioned. For example, adding an image after “The Green Tide” section where you mention International Women’s Day and International Women’s day becoming a sea of green everywhere in Latin America. Including an image of what this looks like with a quick caption description would make the lengthy text reading more engaging! I would also say including somewhere on the wiki a picture of significant leaders in each movement/nation would make your edits even stronger.

Any other suggestions?

My only other suggestion for you would be to be careful where you place your citations. Since there are only 5 total sources that you included, I would say to add them not after every question but 1 at the end can be misleading. Even if it’s the same source, include it multiple times throughout the paragraph that you use it for. That way, the reader knows where to give credit to your research and where to find more in depth information if they find themselves confused. I would also suggest to include more actual dates that were significant to “Justicia para Nuestras Hijas”.