User:Gpol643/Gulabi Gang/Sefinkel Peer Review

Lead: The lead is a great general introduction to what the Gulabi Gang is and what their mission/methods are.It clearly has been updated to include later paragraphs in the article in a neat and precise way and gives a brief description of what is to come in the article. The group solidarity section could use a better introductory sentence-- it feels like readers are just randomly thrown into Sampat Pal Devi's claim. Maybe adding another reminder of who she is by just adding (, the founder,)?

Content: The content is extremely relevant to the topic and includes all of the necessary content. The Gulabi Gang is a perfect representation of an underrepresented group as it focuses on women in lower caste politics.

Tone and Balance: Overall, I think the article is balanced, however, it may be interesting to get and investigate sources that are not just pro-Gubali. There are a lot of quotes and ideas revolving around the founder, Sampat Pal Devi. I think it may be interesting to have a section focusing on their backlash to neutralize the article more.

Sources and References: All sources are live, correct to accurate sources, and reflect what the source says. However, I cannot open any of the links from the current references section. You clearly are using articles from marginalized voices as well as making sure that you're articles are peer-reviewed.

Organization: The layout of the article is perfect. It is super clear and concise-- super easy to read and understand!

Images and Media: I'd love another photo of women in the pink saris together or the women working in the small businesses-- the article almost feels like the Gubali Gang is more of a community than a gang that fights social justice. Both, I think, are true but adding more images may help sell that.

Overall Impressions: The article is incredibly insightful and a lot more organized than the original article. I think your layout has definitely improved the article as it now does not feel as daunting to read and makes information a lot easier to understand than befire.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * 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.)