User:Dtzung/Arria Ly/Angelina lee20 Peer Review

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


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Dtzung/Arria Ly:
 * 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.)

Overall this wikipedia page is very well constructed. Going in I had no idea of who this person was and the wikipedia page created was all to tell me a lot about them as well as the context they existed within. However with all this information provided I do think there are a couple of pieces that could be more concise, namely the lead section. It's divided into two paragraphs but I think it would be easier to read if it were one, since it's meant to be a summary of the whole article. I also think that the last sentence listing her nicknames should actually be the first sentence since if you're clicking onto someone's wikipedia page and you know her by a different name seeing it in the first sentence would reaffirm that your on the correct page. Moving onto content I think you are super set here and there is a ton of relevant information as well as a ton of contextual information. I think this ties into the amount of sources you were able to find as it seems that this person is definitely notable and deserving of a wikipedia page. Majority of the entry is also written in a neutral tone, and the only time I see anything that might be written in a different tone is the legacy section where her aggressive behavior is mentioned, but I do also see that this appears to be paraphrased, so maybe mentioning that this is a scholars viewpoint an don't a unanimous statement about her behavior would clear this up. The last section I was peer reviewing was the organization which flowed really well. I found it easy to go from section to section for majority of the work. The only change in organization I would make is moving the combat feminists to the role in movement section instead of the early life, because when I read early life I immediately think of more private life before starting or joining movements. Overall this was a really good wikipedia that would benefit from a few minor tweaks.