User:Mberk11/Political movement/Lshane23 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) MBerk11
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Mberk11/Political movement

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
The lead serves its purpose. It is not overly detailed or complicated and provides a good, concise overview of the information. The lead also makes the topic seem interesting and important.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

Content evaluation
The content added is all relevant and up to date. The only change I would make is shortening the last paragraph, as some of the information about the United Partisans is relevant but very specific for the page. I won't criticize this for not mentioning underrepresented groups because that would require you to go through every political revolution in history in all areas.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Tone and balance evaluation
The content added seems to be very neutral. As stated above, the example in the failed political movement section is more in depth than other points. For example, when you discuss BLM and MeToo, you sort of assume that people are already familiar with those concepts. Most people probably are, but if you are going to discuss several topics, you may consider giving them equal coverage with the same amount of information.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation
All sources are backed up with good sources and the links seem to work fine.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Organization evaluation
The information is well written. I would make small changes to make it more readable. For example instead of "These are all revolutions that forced a new government policy or social agenda for the government by a large sum of the total population", I would say "Each of these movements used a large portion of the population to force new governmental policies and social agendas". Just shortening up the sentences and focusing on one idea at a time will probably be beneficial.

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


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

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?
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * 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?
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall I think this is a really great start to the article. There is a lot of relevant and strong information and it is sourced very well. Just a few minor changes will make it more readable and completely ready to be on the site.