User:Natrome2015/White feminism/Mdesai6 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Natrome2015


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Natrome2015/White_feminism?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * White 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.)

I noticed that you don't have a lead section in your sandbox draft. I honestly don't know what the lead is for. I'm not sure if it is just for our sandbox draft or if it is also supposed to go in our article. However, I treated it as an introduction to my draft and what I added to the main article.

For sentence structure and grammatical reasons, I would change the ending of your first sentence to "focusing on the right to vote and political representation" as it sounds a bit more fluid.

The first thing I noticed when looking at the "White Feminism" Wikipedia page is that there is a disclaimer that says the origin section "relies excessively on references to primary sources." Perhaps you could find more secondary sources in which accredited people talk about Wollstonecraft's contributions to the discussion on White Feminism. I saw that you had a citation that said "by whom?" Maybe you could find a source such, as a journal, that criticizes Wollstonecraft's advocation for moral and political equality between men and women that only addresses members belonging to the middle-class.

I also noticed that the last sentence of your sandbox draft was not included in your final version in the article. Was that intentional? I thought it was a great point that really tied your draft together. It is a bit of a divisive statement so it might be best to use a signal phrase such as "Professors Dreama Moon and Michelle Holling felt that..." in order to separate their views from Wikipedia's views.

As previously stated, I would remove the use of Wollstonecraft's "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" as it is a primary source and replace it with a source that includes someone's established opinion on the practices found in Wollstonecraft's text. For some reason, it says that there is a citation needed after that sentence because an editor has indicated that this claim needs a citation to a reliable source. I don't know who put that there, especially since it says (December 2021). I think that finding a secondary source would solve both these issues.

I would elaborate more on the sentence regarding Olympe de Gouges. How did they advocate for white feminism specifically? What did they say or do that excluded women of color from the narrative?

Other than the Wollstonecraft, your sources are looking good, recent, and credible!