User:King Canine/Women in the Russian Revolution/Wcoz98 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username)
 * King Canine
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * User:King Canine/Women in the Russian Revolution

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The lead is not updated.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * No
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * It has a side table of contents, but not lead.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * N/A

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, new and varied information was added.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Yes, sources up to they year 2020
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * It is a big topic, so there are a lot of applicable things that go in. It looks like the three sections are topical, and fit in with the narrative.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * It does. It focuses on women in the Russian Revolution. Particularly, it focuses on the topic of women's liberation.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Yes
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * There might be a slight bias towards women, but its virtually unnoticeable.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No, the viewpoint is solely that of a neutral look at the role/actions/problems for women around that time.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes, four new sources have been added.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * There could always be more sources: good websites, perhaps a few more books.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Yes, up to 2020
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Russian and English viewpoints on the subject.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * Yes

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Yes, however there are a few missing words and awkward sentences here and there.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * A few missing words.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * N/A
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * N/A
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * N/A

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * N/A
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * N/A
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * N/A
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * N/A

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Yes, there is a lot of new content. There are new sections that would definitely benefit the existing article. The current article has a lot of facets, but also
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * It expands further on some topics such as the women question, and it adds new information like the existence of the Zhenotdel.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * It really only needs a change in a few parts of the article where the sentence structure is awkward.

Overall evaluation
Great job, it has a lot of new info and is very informative. I think that all the added new stuff will really benefit the existing article. The only thing that could improve is that some of the sentences could be phrased differently.