User:Gabyhanze/Leonor Villegas de Magnón/ChujieQiu0614 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

I am reviewing Gaby's draft on Leonor Villegas de Magnón


 * Link to draft you're reviewingwo
 * User:Gabyhanze/Leonor Villegas de Magnón


 * 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.)

I think the draft is a really good one and here are some of its strengths that I picked up. First, I really like how Gaby outlined her entire entries with subtitles to tell me the direction which this article is going, and I think that her outline seems great. The draft seems to outline Magnón's life from birth to death with an emphasis on her career as a writer and organizer of the White COrss, which seems intriguing to me. The second strength is that her tone is fairly neutral and she doesn't use subjective adjectives to describe certain figures, which makes the entries seems very professional. Overall, the article seems well-organized right now. I did, however, want to give some suggestions for further improvements despite all these strengths.


 * 1) I am not sure if it is valid for you to split the entire book into three citations even if they are different sections of the book, I suggest to check before making that edits. I also think it would be great for you to include some secondary sources or primary sources from people who knew Magnón to give a more thorough introduction of her.
 * 2) I think it would be better if you include the specific year of her birth if you can find one, right now you mentioned the condition of her upbringing without telling the readers when she was born, I suggest you add that up.
 * 3) I suggest you to add in some reasons of why her books is rejected so that the readers get a better idea about the book and the time period she was living in.

These are all very minor thing because the article seems to me, in general, a very comprehensive one at the moment. I just think it would be perfected if these details are improve, but overall, I think I have learnt a great deal after reading this entry. The article also inspires me to involve a section of publication history for the book I am researching about, so all in all, I think the article is very good.