User:EthanUofM/Women in Communist Propaganda/RJim312 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

EthanUofM


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:EthanUofM/Women in Communist Propaganda


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * N/A

Lead
So far no lead has been created for this page which did not exist previously.

Content
The content written so far only lists the definition of propoganda as it pertains to Communist states. Furthermore, in the section labeled "history of communist propoganda" there is a lot on definitions of communist propoganda with nothing written as to how it came about or even anything about the origins of it in regards to the participation of women in coommunist propoganda. What is there seems important in regards to communist propoganda as a whole, but with little impact on the page itself. I think condensing it and putting this section in the lead with a hyperlink to the page on communist propoganda would make for a much better page.

Tone and Balance
It is presented from a very neutral point of view which offers specific definitions and explicit writing of theory rather than extrapolating anyhting of it. Although there is a sentence on western capitalist perception which could be a bit misleading without proper citation.

No perspective is over or under represented here.

Sources and References
There are no sources here, you need to have sources going forward both to meet the notability of the article for Wikipedia standards and to give legitimacy to the page. As it stands the page is a collection of information with the author forcing us to trust their sole word without anything backing it up. If you do have sources they need to be properly cited. There is a mention of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but there is no proper citation of it so as a reader I have to trust that they are writing in the actual entry from it.

Organization
There are uses of the words like propoganda in certain circumstances to refer to the word in the specific sense of "communist propoganda" without writing out that whole phrase which can throw readers off when it turns out that the writer is writing about that instead of general propoganda.

The headings for most of the sections look like they could work, but the headings on "women in communist propoganda" is redundant given that it is what the page is about. The heading on history can be shortened to just "history" because readers already know that the page is about. The information on general communist propoganda could use some compression and be put in the lead.

Images
N/A

New Article
The topic seems like it could be notable enough and interesting enough to be its own page, but without cited sources it will not meet Wikipedia's standards on notability.

Overall
It seems like you did some cursory reading on the topic of communist propoganda, but without citations or sources of any kind I cannot determine notability or even accountabilty of what is written. What is written feels off topic since its a page on the contribution of women to communist propoganda, but goes into the general history of it with no mention of women at all. This page can be greatly improved by finding sources to include for the article and greatly expanding what you wrote by going into the history of women in communist propoganda. Bringing in names of great figures would help since such a movement would include people that were important to it. This page has potential, but is extremely rough and undeveloped right now.