User:MadelineLC/History of feminism/Unreliable Information Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Alex S


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * History of feminism

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.)

Leading
The leading is concise using very comprehensible diction for people to understand what the article is about. Additionally, it doesn't go too in-depth and it isn't redundant. I liked how it outlined the "waves" of feminism in the lead. Very minor suggestions but I noticed it didn't include the "forth wave" since the article does touch base quite a bit on it. Although I would cover a little about the the feminist groups around the world since it does talk about it fair more than the other subtopics.

Tone and Balance
In all, didn't see any persuasive writing in the article; very neutral tone. It included many concrete facts and examples, many statements were cited but a handful were also without evidence. A number of claims I saw that were being used to introduce a new topic or when transitioning to another subject. I suggest  somewhat creating a very brief summary of of the topic you want to make a claim about.

Organization
The article is in a tidy logically chronical order. I liked how in the leading section it was concise and short. I noticed that in the historic sections, it wasn't ordered by events or groups but by years. To elaborate, in each subsection a person would see notable figures and events not in order but reading thoroughly, each subtopic is placed that way because of the importance of the dates which I found brilliant and saw it neat; I suppose how else would anyone organize them?

The article also follows the structure of the leading section; after the leading section the article follows in the order of historic notable figures and important events, followed by the "waves" of feminism, and finally--lack of better words, everything else; which wasn't included in the leading section.

The article was well organized by broader topics to being subdivided into major sub categories; in which made it very straightforward and easy to read. I didn't notice any grammar mistakes. I found the article very easy to read and unbiased; it wasn't made difficult to determine whether it was being persuasive or not.

Early 20th Century
Lack of citations


 * In the second paragraph, it starts off making a claim without any supporting citation. Although it does have a single example, it doesn't justify the rest of the claim, "Books, articles, speeches, pictures, and papers from the period show a diverse of themes..." Although this may be true, nevertheless it it could be changed/shortened to discuss specifically about the example included in this paragraph.
 * Has a direct quote from Emmline Pankhurst without citations; it's equivalent to adding words in her mouth.
 * Again, making claims without citing. Moreover, it talks about an event where Susan B. Anthony attended in Britain in 1902 to a "best-known suffrage group" Citation here: Women's Social and Political Union
 * The subtopic about the first and second world wars include great information but it questions if I some of this content is true. As I personally don't doubt that females were taking "men's" job roles at the time in their absents, its trivial that it still should be included because there are many people who don't believe in the holocaust and the vast majority of them are millennials and generation Z.

Under "Marion Rei and Caroline Norton"
Under "Marion Rei and Caroline Norton" The opening sentence needs a citation: "the dissenting feminist voices had little to no social influence. There was little sign of change in the political or social order, nor any evidence of a recognizable women's movement"


 * Also fact check that opening sentence. France were behind in Women's rights after the UK and America. Rei and Norton were born in the UK.


 * Substitute with: France in the early nineteenth century were descending behind Europe and America by advocating in for Women Rights. "

The Third-Wave feminism
I thought the lead was very well written. The first few opening lines was fluid transitioning from Second-wave to the Third-wave feminism movement. Then lead summarizes in a chronological order of the article. For example: Short history > Riot Girl >, etc. It talks about the rise of feminist on an online platform; which isn't mentioned at all in this wiki section.


 * Because this is the current feminism wave of todays' era where online platforms are boundless and the primary social media, should include maybe some statistics or early/current events of the time.
 * Suggestion - Contemporary Feminism:
 * Example: The "#metoo" movement - The metoo movement is an example of women oppression of sexual harassments and violence from advocating survivors. On an online platform, using the hashtag publicizes the importance of these atrocious action towards female victims.