User:Miamiheat12/Jewish Autonomism/Discreetalmonds Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Miamiheat12


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Miamiheat12/Jewish_Autonomism?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Jewish Autonomism

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
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? I am a bit confused as to whether this is supposed to be a proposed section of the main article's lead, or if you are rewriting the lead entirely. If it is supposed to be in addition to the article lead, I think it is a concise yet detailed way to clearly explain the fall from grace of autonomism.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? However, I think that if this was meant to replace the original article's lead, it should be edited to be a bit more general and overarching about the entire movement, rather than just why it did not catch on.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The original article does not have many sections, so I think a brief description of the major sections you create would be helpful.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? Your paragraph about the general history would be a good addition for more context to the historical section of the original article. I really like the sections you are adding about history within the US, and the movement's stance on Palestine. This is really interesting information that allows a reader to understand more about the movement and its followers. I think the paragraph titled "Autonomist Conception of Jewish Nationhood" could come earlier to provide more ancient history context for the movement, because it is well written and very important information.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? Your most recent source is from 2010, which is not too long ago, but if there is updated scholarship, it may help to have some more recent information in there as well. In the original article, the most recent source is 2012, so I would try to find something even more new.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? I am assuming you are working to add more sections, and I think the ones you have now are very good. I wonder how you could expand the historical conflicts section in the original article, as that seems very interesting. You could also add sections that list key thinkers, quotes, events, etc.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? I would say so, as the original article is not very well developed and covers topics that include a marginalized group and a lesser know ideology attached to a better known movement.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral? For the most part, the tone is very neutral and factual without any bias. There are a few parts I wondered about however.
 * "Clearly, Dubnow was not anti the establishment of this state, although perhaps he would become opposed to the evolution of its existence." To me, this sentence seems more analytical than factual, and think that instead of making predictions, you should try to keep it focused on what Dubnow and autonomists actually said/thought.
 * "Yet he was not belligerent or hostile in his opposition to the Zionists; in fact he looked sympathetically on a Jewish project in Palestine." I think this sentence kind of works to create a certain perception of Dubnow as a person through words like "sympathetic", and think it could be worded differently to show that he supported a Jewish project, but did not advocate it himself (becuase...[add more info]).

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? It seems most of it is, but a few places could use more citations.
 * "Bukovina was a region with a 13% Jewish population and was known for its peaceful coexistence of minority groups. The Compromise enacted ensured that each national minority would be granted a proportionate share of representation in the regional government." I am not sure if the citation a few sentences later is for this sentence, but I think a citation should be right after it considering the statistic is not generally common knowledge and signals for being source-checked.
 * "Although Jewish Autonomism originated in Eastern Europe, the movement spread to the United States, an obvious result of the prominence that American Jews obtained in negotiating for Jewish rights in East Europe from 1919-1945." Because this has a year in it, I would put a citation right after
 * "From the 1880s onward, Dubnow was consistent in his skepticism over the practicality of a Palestinian homeland for the whole Jewish nation, instead seeing the diaspora as the more likely home for most Jewish people." see above
 * "As Dubnow aged, he continued to become more and more receptive towards Zionism. His final thoughts on the subject were written down in 1937 as, 'a Jewish State will accommodate only a part of the Diaspora, just as was the case in ancient times… a small Judea alongside a ten-tribe Israel.'" This should have a citation right after it since it is a quote from another article.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are mostly academic articles, and one primary sources. I wonder if you could find more primary sources, and maybe some books at well to expand your list. Otherwise however, they look very good. I think you could also use the article we read in class about Dubnow and autonomism if you wanted.

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * In the lead, instead of "invertibility", did you mean "inevitability"?
 * Instead of ".. anti the establishment of this state" try, "against the establishment"
 * The images attached are your article with my suggested grammar edits in red
 * Edits.png
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? For the most part yes. I think the Bukovina Compromise could be its own subsection so you can go into a bit more detail about it. In general, you have a few large body paragraphs, and as you add more information it may be helpful to break the information down into subgroups for clarity.



Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? The article is a bit more in depth and complete with the added information, but could definitely use more development as a whole.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? It is well written and very factual. It is not overly wordy or filled with academic jargon which is good for the average person using Wikipedia.
 * How can the content added be improved? More specificity and organization would be very good to gain a full picture of the movement.
 * Good job!
 * Good job!