User:Dolphin372/Revisionist Zionism/Dolly City Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(Dolphin372)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dolphin372/Revisionist Zionism


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)

Lead

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Yes, though I think you can leave the existing content and add the sentence about expansionism and Jewish majority on both sides of the Jordan river after "maximalism"
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes, it can be a bit more concise: instead of "the need to create" you can write "establishing a Jewish majority..."
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Not really, but maybe what your version could be integrated in what's already there so that the lead will make a more complete description of the article's content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Not overly detailed.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Definitely. The ideology section in particular covers aspects that are missing from the original article.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Partially. I would have added a few things more recent (such as the 2008 article). In particular, for the "two central points of the Revisionist program", I'd try to find something more recent than the 1983 article.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Not really, but it isn't exactly clear how the new content fits into the new article. Does it come after the "History" subsection?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It deals with several equity gaps, does it's not particularly related to topics underrepresented (which is fine in the context of this article :)) I saw that there is also a subsection entitled "influence on the Likud" - it is extremely interesting, but I am afraid it might require a lot more work, which might be beyond the scope of this assignment.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? It seems so.
 * 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

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes. However, there is a need for more integration of sources in each paragraph. The fact that each paragraph is based on only one source is a bit problematic. At this point, I'd try to find a few additional more recent sources and - without changing the text dramatically - add additional citations. Here are a few examples following a very quick search:
 * Daniel Kupfert HellerJabotinsky’s Children: Polish Jews and the Rise of Right-Wing Zionism, Princeton University Press, 2017
 * Zouplna, Jan. "Vladimir Jabotinsky and the Split within the Revisionist Union: From the Boulogne Agreement to the Katowice Putsch, 1931–33." Journal of Israeli History 24, no. 1 (2005): 35-63.
 * Shapira, Anita. Land and power: The Zionist resort to force, 1881-1948. Stanford University Press, 1999 - It's not only about the revisionist (which it's good, since it gives it a general context), and you can refer to the relevant page numbers.
 * In addition, you can also add references to primary source, as you excellently did with the Iron Wall. See for example Jabotinsky's text on Jewish Fascism (1926). You'd probably manage to find it easily online.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) It seems so
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Not completely.
 * Are the sources current? See above
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Not really
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) -
 * The author uses solid academic sources.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Yes.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Mostly yes, except for the first sentence of the lead, as I noted above.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Occasionally. for example: In the 4th paragraph of Ideology: "Jabotinsky was organized" instead of "Jabotinsky organized."
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The ideology section should perhaps be divided to smaller sections. For example: "Jabotinsky's position towards Fascism" can be a good sub-heading; As noted above, the author should decide how to fit the new content within the existing one. It should be noted that the ideology section refers mainly to the pre-state revisionist movement, so the title should reflect this. Maybe the ideology section should be a part of "Jabotinsky and Revisionist Zionism"? Another option is to divide the History section into two main categories: "Early history" and "After the establishment of the State of Israel," and to include within the former the new additions.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * The additions are very valuable, but the quality depends on how they'd be integrated within the existing article.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It expands on the early chapter of revisionism, and highlight the ideas, where as the existing article prioritizes political history. It also addresses intriguing aspects such as the relations to fascism.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * As I noted above, I think you should focus on 1) validating existing content with additional sources (and/or integrating the sources that you already use so that several sources support each paragraph) 2) Organizing your new additions within the existing article, including combining the existing lead and the new one. Then you can add some final touches with visual images, etc. All in all, it looks promising, Good luck!