User:Ngdana/Community organizing/Varshanekkanti Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Ngdana


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ngdana/Community_organizing?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Community organizing

Evaluate the drafted changes
Content: The added content definitely adds a lot of value to the existing Wikipedia article. With regards to the introduction sector, the discussion around the general community organizing practice model was very interesting, and this part of the text could be integrated in a more seamless manner. Along with this, the description of feminist organizing might be more clear if it was moved to the Feminist community organizing section as it seems disconnected from this discussion of Brady’s model for general community organizing. The added section on Feminist Community Organizing was a very strong part of the article. The limitations section was super interesting, and potentially adding a similar section for Grassroots organizing or other types of community organizing would be valuable as well. Overall, great content - the lead part of your added section did a great job summarizing and introducing feminist organizing, and it clearly mapped the information you would discuss later in your writing.

Tone and Balance: The majority of the content is strong in that it has a very neutral, unbiased view towards community organizing. One phrase that could be slightly adapted is in the Grassroots organizing section. Changing the phrase “it is worth noting” could make this part of the text more aligned with encyclopedia voice because adding that phrase makes it seem like the author’s opinion is being integrated into the content. Also, in the limitations section for feminist organizing, one recommendation would be to phrase limitations and shortcomings in the context of scholars and what people who have studied this field have stated. By reframing your argument such that you are communicating the arguments of people in the field as opposed to identifying the ‘biggest limitation’ yourself, you can ensure that the material remains unbiased and is based on sources.

Sources and References: All the new content is backed up by reliable sources of information and the source list seems very thorough. After looking through some of the references, I noticed that all of the cited references are from reputable journals which adds a lot of strong credibility to the added material. A couple of the sources are on the older side (1994, 2000); however, some of the content that was introduced into this article involved models for community organizing which would still be applicable over time. Sources are cited at a good frequency and overall the source list is very strong with a diverse array of authors.

Organization: The content that is added is clear and easy to read. The section headings are organized and flow logically with the current set up of the article.

Overall impressions: Overall, the new content definitely improved the overall quality of the article and is much more complete. Feminist community organizing was a significant gap in the existing article’s description of different types of organizing so it is very important that this content was added in. I also really appreciated the discussion of limitations of feminist community organizing because the other sections did not really delve into the nuanced limitations of organizing, but it was helpful to understand for this particular type. Finally, I really liked the description of the models that scholars have defined for community organizing because this integrating of more conceptual/theoretical material was something that was missing from the original article.