User:Drabkin247/Judy Freespirit/Layla (Hist M186B) Peer Review

The Wikipedia page on Judy Free Spirit was packed with detailed and clear information that made the article easy to read and digest.

For the lead section, there is a little bit of repetition about her involvement with the Fat Liberation Movement, but other than that, I think it summed up who she is quite well. I think to improve, the lead should also try and contain a a little more description of the article's major sections like her contributions and books. I do think that the lead section and the biography could be merged into one section- the lead section but it is understandable if the group wants to continue separating the two.

I thought the section titled, "Her Books" was written very well because it not only described each book authored by Freespirit but also gave the reader a good amount of description detailing what the books were about without making the content feel too overwhelming.

As for the "Contributions" part of the article, I think it might be helpful to revise certain sentences that might deem the content bias. I feel as though the sentence, "Freespirit boldly challenged the simplistic belief that childhood sexual abuse could be directly attributed as a cause of lesbianism," (though is very true) could do without the words "boldly" and "simplistic."

As for the sources included, I thought there was a great balance of information and evidence. All the information was properly sourced and easy to navigate and read as well.

I think this article definitely fits with Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia's purpose is to provide their readers with information that is important to know and with the information provided on Freespirit, it is clear that she is someone that should have her own Wikipedia page.

I think overall this is a great Wikipedia page and as a draft, the group is already starting out very strong with its content and writing style. There is a few repetitive sentences that can be found within the page so it also could be best to revise that before the final submission. Besides this, great job on the work!

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)