User:Jsanders3215/Feminist movements and ideologies/Elrupp Peer Review

General info
Jsanders3215
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Jsanders3215/Feminist movements and ideologies
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Feminist movements and ideologies

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

 *  Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?  As of now, the lead has not been updated.

Content

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Yes.  In my WGSS education, Patricia Hill Collins has been a key figure in my studies on Black Feminist thought and do feel that connecting her with Crenshaw is a good way to incorporate her.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? While the inclusion of Collins does bring us closer to the present, there has Black feminist theorization and dialogue since 1991 in the academy, social movements, and in popular cultural with the rise of Black feminist public intellectuals such as bell hooks.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * As mentioned above, I would like to see at least a brief inclusion of public-facing and scholarly Black feminist work.
 * While the third sentence the author begins to clarify the meaning of "matrix of domination," I think a short definition in that second sentence is needed. If not, I feel the author at least needs to link the term to the Matrix of domination article.
 * I feel that African feminism needs to both be defined and better tied into the rest of the content in this section if it is going to stay there.
 * Since the article is about ideologies and movements, I think the article could benefit from a one-sentence summary about how Collins has changed or contributed to Black feminist ideology. What is new?  Based on what is currently written, I would have a hard time understanding how her work is distinct from Crenshaw's.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Yes.  The article concerns movements and ideologies founded by women and gender-diverse individuals.  The article also focuses on the contributions of feminist thinkers at the intersection of multiple axes of oppression, such as Black feminist thinkers.

Tone and Balance

 * Is the content added neutral? Generally, yes.  The section is fairly short and descriptive of Collin's work.  The one tweak I would maybe make is that in the last sentence of the third paragraph, I would clarify that what you are expressing comes from Collins and is not being stated as a universal fact.  While the reader could infer that based on the prior sentence, I don't think it hurts to clarify.  Also, what specific work(s) of Collins are being cited?  I assume it is Black Feminist Thought, but I would say that in addition to adding a footnote.
 *  Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?  Besides the tweak mentioned above, I feel the addition feels fairly neutral.  In a brief cursory search, I wasn't able to find much opposition to Collin's work, so I am not sure if criticism of it is a predominant enough view to include in the article.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? As mentioned above, I feel there isn't much opposition in Black Feminism to Collin's view to be highlighted.  For the whole section, however, there has been debate over the defining and use of intersectionality.  Here is an example.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? In alignment with my previous comments, I would the added section does not.

Sources and References

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The author has not provided citations for the content that they have added nor included the citations from the original article.  The author does mention Collins (1991), which I am assuming is Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness and the Politics of Empowerment.  However, that came out in 1990, so that should be corrected and clarified.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? While their citations are currently absent, it did make me wonder whether or not it would be good to briefly describe and cite modern debates around intersectionality and its colloquial usage.  All mentioned scholars and activists are historically marginalized.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? The Wikipedia article links work.  There are no links to sources.

Organization

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * I am not sure the last sentence of the third paragraph is expressing clearly what the author is trying to say. By "construct," do you mean an individual's experience?  Is it one "form of oppression" or interlinked oppressions?  Is the experience solely oppression?  I would experiment with the wording and have someone without a WGSS background see if they can understand what you are trying to communicate.
 * I would personally reread through the added section and try to find shorter, clearer ways to say this, especially in the first two sentences. For example, I tripped over "provides additional conceptualization of how Black Feminism can be identified."
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * This doesn't appear to be the case in the live article, but in Sandbox, there needs to be a space between "intersectionality" and "in" in that second paragraph.
 * I appreciate the author's choice to capitalize "Black" in the full paragraph that they added. However, it then needs to be capitalized throughout the entire section.
 * I would omit the comma after "in particular" in the third paragraph.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? I do think that connecting Crenshaw and Collins makes sense, based on what is currently in the article.

Images and Media

 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic? The author has not seemed to add any additional images to this article.  The current live article does include some that highlight particular feminist figures as well as historical buttons, but they seem to be clumped towards the beginning.  The author may consider adding some to the last few major sections of the article in particular as well as removing one or two where there are clumps.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way? Dispersal in the actual article feels uneven.

Overall Impressions

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? Yes.  While it seems that this author may have a bit more to do in terms of editing their article--I am uncertain of what else they are planning on working on--I do feel that Patricia Hill Collins work on matrices of domination does add an important element to the discussion of Black feminist thought.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? While Collins isn't as much of a household name as Crenshaw, I do see her work as an important academic contribution to the discussion of Intersectionality.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Adding citations for your additions
 * Defining African feminism if you intend to keep it in this section of the article; the author can also experiment with how to incorporate it better into the article
 * Cleaning up phrasing, and leaning towards more concise language
 * Clarify why Collins is important and the definition of "matrices of domination"
 * Clean up grammar mistakes (see "Organization")