User:Nish0912/Feminist political theory/Allison275 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Nish0912


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * (Sandbox version of this article !!)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nish0912/Feminist_political_theory?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) NA

Evaluate the drafted changes

 * 1) Introduction / lead.
 * 2) I think you did a great job at concisely introducing the topic in the beginning.
 * 3) One point of question I had from it is the distinction between feminist political philosophy / feminist political theory. I notice that you seem to use them interchangeably in the introductory section, but also state that feminist political philosophy is an overlapping but separate section of feminist political theory. I think it would be prudent either to explain why you use them interchangeably (as it makes it a little confusing which you specifically are writing on) or ensure they are considered separately by sticking with one term.
 * 4) Your introduction is that you could possibly make a separate section for some of the information. Rather than lumping it all into the introductory section, it could be helpful to the reader to have a new section when you define the term in comparison to other, more well known terms like feminism, as you do speak a lot on what it is not, even though they are related. Maybe try to keep the introduction on what it is (the defining characteristics), and then you could have another section that compares it to better known terms like feminism, and how the comparison further demonstrates the importance of the particular study.
 * 5) Content
 * 6) I think overall your content choice is really nice. One question I do have for you in the content that you chose to provide -- is there any instances of it in practice, or the importance of it today? It might be interesting to include a current section that demonstrates it in practice either recently (2016 election?) or something like that
 * 7) Tone
 * 8) You do a good job at keeping it neutral and professional.
 * 9) Just make sure that you are representing any possible viewpoints -- is there any trend that disagrees with this theory? Is it major / important enough to address in the article?
 * 10) Sources
 * 11) You did a really nice job finding a good selection of finding a fair amount of sources, which I was impressed by. Generally looking over them, it seems like you found quality sources and the links work!
 * 12) Organization.
 * 13) I think it is fairly easy to read throughout, one suggestion I do have is try to keep sentences concise -- too many long sentences are going to lose the reader.
 * 14) Again, I think that it could benefit from one section that divides the introduction, because it seems like there is an important point to be made with the comparisons to other terms and subjects, and how they are interrelated with his term. By giving it its own section, it demonstrates the importance and may help readers who will more easily pick out terms like feminism, and if they are looking to see the comparison they know where to go right away.
 * 15) But otherwise I really like how you've divided up the history section, it makes it nice to read and very clear what you're looking at.
 * 16) A couple times there were small grammatical errors. Just make sure capitals are in the right place and punctuation. :)
 * 17) Image.
 * 18) The image appears to adhere to the copyright restrictions, and I think it's contextually relevant / goes with the article well.
 * 19) You could add more images, particularly in the history section it would be neat to see a couple of images of notable eras to enhance understanding / make it more interesting.
 * 20) New Article.
 * 21) You did a really good job at finding a good list of sources -- I was impressed by the list of sources because it really seems like you've done a lot of research for the subject.
 * 22) Quickly looking over them, it seems like you also did a nice job at finding quality sources, which of course makes Wikipedia happy.
 * 23) You did a nice job linking to other articles as well, so it seems like it will be fairly discoverable. One thing is that you could add an infobox, especially for the terms that you compare it to or if there are pages for the different eras you could link to.
 * 24) Overall it looks really nice. It’s neutral and fairly easy to read, and provides the requisite information without getting too lost in details. As mentioned before, there are just a couple of structural things you could work on. I think it would be nice to break up the introduction into just defining and introducing what you’re going to talk about in the rest of the article, and have an extra, separate section that goes into what the theory is in comparison to other theories, and what it is defined as juxtaposed against the other theories and terms that are more commonly known / understood. Also, you could use one or two more photos, particularly in the section about the history of the term in practice -- it could be neat if you are able to find some pictures of some of the mentioned movements in action next to their descriptions.  Finally, my main other suggestion is to address if there are any strong viewpoints against the theory, or if it took a while to be commonly accepted. You address the theory well, but my guess (and of course I don’t know a whole lot about the political science background of the term, and if it was accepted in the political science community) is that that it maybe took a bit to be commonly used and understood by people in political science, both in understanding it and thinking that it is a useful and applicable term, and conducting research guided by feminist political theory.  Overall you did a great job!! It’s very informative and well done