User:Lightnessofbeing23/La Voix des Femmes (France, 1848)/Spyglass14 Peer Review


 * 1) This is so impressive! Super thorough and easy to follow. There is a very natural distinction between sub-sections and seriously very few questions left unanswered by the end of the entry. It is obviously very well-researched and articulate!
 * 2) I would suggest a few sentences clarifying what you mean when you say that the newspaper ended because of "disappointments with the government." It is a little unclear whether you mean that the government wad disappointed with the newspaper so it forced its closure, or that the editors at the newspaper were disappointed with the government so decided to close. Although I'm not sure that the latter makes sense if the newspaper was supposed to be somewhat revolutionary? It could just use a few sentences to clarify!!
 * 3) I think that the article is very well flushed out, but one part that I stumbled at was the frequent mention of "women did"... I found myself mostly wondering if the authors could provide more context as to which or what kind of women mobilized on this front? Was it urban women, was it women of all social classes or one particular one? That's one of the only critiques I have, though!
 * 4) I was so impressed by all of the hyperlinking and want to incorporate more of that into my article.

Lead


 * The lead is very clear!
 * Not overly detailed
 * Could benefit from a brief description of each of the article's major sections

Content


 * The content is relevant to the topic and appears up to date. I can't identify at this moment any content that is missing.
 * Yes, I believe that it deals with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps. Perhaps the subheading of "French Revolution of 1848, the February Revolution" could be edited to clarify that it is the context or "early years" of the paper's founding? It's not immediately clear how the French Rev. relates to the newspaper initially.

Tone and Balance


 * The content is neutral and doesn't appear heavily biased.
 * I'm not sure what the Wikipedia policy is about words like "significant" and "pivotal," but those might be specific word choices to consider changing if they come off as too subjective.

Sources and References:


 * The sources appear very thorough, current, and relevant.
 * It doesn't appear that there are any blogs or self-published authors used as sources.

Organization


 * Concise, clear, and easy to read
 * No identified grammatical or spelling errors
 * Well-organized but could use a little more context with regards to how the French Rev. immediately follows as a header from the introduction.

Images and Media


 * Both images are well-captioned and definitely enhance the understanding of the topic
 * It appears that they adhere to the copyright regulations.
 * The images could be made slightly bigger!

Overall Impressions


 * The article appears to be complete. There could be an opportunity to expand upon the article with a "Later Years" section, or bolster the current "Legacy" portion!
 * Overall, amazing article. Congrats on a job well done :)

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)