User:Eliza321/Eleanor Foraker/JennaMacG Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Eliza321


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Eliza321/Eleanor Foraker
 * 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.)

Lead: I believe that the information within this section is great as it reflects the content of the rest of the article. The introductory sentence is concise and it clearly defines what the article's content is about.

Content: I believe that the article's content is up-to-date and evenly distributed across sections. The article also addresses a topic that is historically underrepresented within mainstream media which I really enjoyed!

Tone and Balance: Overall, I think the content is mostly neutral. I would suggest replacing some words such as "incredible" and "key" as they could persuade readers into certain directions. With changing some wording around, I believe it would help keep the article from containing biased claims.

Sources and References: All content provided is backed up by reliable sources. I think it is great that the cited resources are from a variety of media outlets. From clicking on viewing the sources cited, I believe they reflect the content of and available literature for the article.

Organization: The article's content is well-written and is easy to read. To enhance the overall organization of the article, I would suggest breaking up the "Lasting Impacts" paragraph into different sub-headings. Since this section contains details that addresses the multiple areas in which Eleanor Foraker's work was influential, I think creating different sub-headings would help break up the content in a more clear and concise way!

Images and Media: Although there are no images (and I know that it is extremely hard to find an appropriate and available one), I think trying to find one as we continue to edit our articles would help complement the content!

For New Articles Only: I believe that the article meets Wikipedia's Notability requirements as it is supported by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. I also think the sources accurately represent the article's content. The article does link to other articles, but I do think some other names can be linked as well (such as ILC Dover and Playtex).

Overall Impressions: The article is extremely detailed and it immerses the reader into the life and work of Eleanor Foraker. I believe the article's strengths are its substantive content and its variety of cited sources. To improve the article, I would suggest changing some biased wording, creating sub-headings for the information in the "Lasting Impacts" heading, and linking some more words to their respective Wikipedia articles. Overall, I think the article is great and will improve the history of feminism within the Wikipedia world!