User:Drabkin247/Judy Freespirit/SageOfSaudade Peer Review

General info
Drabkin247
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Drabkin247/Judy Freespirit
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * n/a
 * n/a

Lead

 * The Lead includes an introductory sentence that concisely and accurately describes the article's topic
 * No, the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections, but rather a general summary of Freespirit's role in feminist activism and her achievements.
 * No, the Lead does not include information that is not present in the article.
 * The Lead is concise, but it could be more so.

Content

 * Yes, all content is relevant to the topic.
 * All the content added is relatively recent (oldest reference is from 1993).
 * No, there is no irrelevant or missing content as far as I am concerned.
 * Yes, the article deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps and addresses topics related to historically underrepresented populations, such as female activists, specifically a specific 'fat' feminist activists.

Tone and Balance

 * Most of the content added is neutral, except for the final paragraph (starting with "Judy Freespirit's contributions to survivor advocacy..."), whose tone should be edited.
 * For instance, I think "Her explicit and unapologetic approach paved the way for a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between trauma, sexuality, and identity" is a bit too congratulatory.
 * Perhaps, if she had some detractors or critics within the broader feminist movement, perhaps they could be discussed briefly.
 * The section 'Contributions to Feminism,' while discussing in detail Freespirit's contributions, does seem to have the reader look favorably upon the subject.

Sources and References

 * Almost all content is backed by secondary sources, except for the 'Contributions to Feminism' section, which seems to be mostly from the opinion of the article's author(s).
 * There are seven sources total: three from 2022, one from 2009, one from 1998, one from 1993, and one (a collection of papers) that is unspecified.
 * All authors are female and some are Latine/Hispanic.
 * All sources' links work.

Organization

 * Though it could use some editing (minor grammar mistakes, conciseness, better vocabulary), most of the information is written clearly and is fairly concise.
 * Very minor grammatical errors, mainly capitalization.
 * The article has clearly defined sections, but it should have cut up large paragraphs to avoid creating overwhelming blocks of text.

New Article

 * The article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements: the article is supported by 5 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject.
 * Similar articles utilize sub-headings which, if implemented, could help with conciseness and organizational issues of the article.
 * No, it does not link to other articles.

Overall impressions

 * The content is fairly comprehensive and draws from significant secondary sources.
 * Editing and proofreading would go a long way to improve the article. Its main weaknesses are the large blocks of text that dissuade the reader and the lack of conciseness/organization from some paragraphs; the article needs to flow better. Overall, it's pretty solid — it just needs some refining.