User:Notsunny9299/Ihud/AnonVisor Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Notsunny9299


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Notsunny9299/Ihud?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Ihud

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall, I think the content you are intending to add to the Ihud article is very well done. It is well researched, organized in a succinct way, and written in a way that is easy to understand. I think that this is a really great start to updating this article!

Your expansion of the lead section is helpful in identifying alternate spellings, and outlining the basic platform of Ihud. It also helps to to outline some of the ideas explored in your additions.

I really like all of the content that you added to this article. It is relevant to the topic, the sources are up to date, and I can't identify any holes in your article given my limited knowledge of Ihud. One comment I would have is that you have a number of shorter paragraphs like "Although it was difficult to win approval of binationalism from Arab leaders, an agreement was achieved between Fawzi Darwish el Husseini, related to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and the League for Jewish Arab Rapprochement and Cooperation, an organization founded in 1939 and allied with Ihud in 1942 ." There are a lot of ideas contained in one sentence. Consider giving your paragraphs and ideas a little context and space out related ideas.

Similarly to your content, the tone is great for wikipedia. The article reads as an unbiased analysis of the history of the Ichud party. Well done.

From what I can see you have done an outstanding job in terms of sources. You have a range of strong secondary sources that I want to explore in revising my article on Buber! Pretty much every sentence is followed by a citation. My one recommendation would be to specify the page number the material you are referencing is found on so that the endnotes are chronological throughout. Tell me where specifically in the text are you referencing.

In terms of organization, I found this to be well structured and easy to follow. I like the way that you kept text from the original article, and used it to expand into more subsections. Again, I think certain one sentence paragraphs could be extended/combined with ideas, but you have a strong sense of topic and flow between your subsections.