User:Rafahorle/Third Woman Press/Itztopaz Peer Review

The overall draft is well-written and balanced. For the "Re-Opening" section, I think that Norma Alarcon's full name could be used in some instances so that those uses can be hyperlinked to her page. I would like to see some more sources used in the article. This would possibly open up the ability to expand more in both the "Early Stages" and "Re-Opening" sections.

I applaud that the information added is extremely relevant to the history and beginnings of the Third Woman Press, and thus is important information that should be included in the article. The tone is neutral and most of the information is factual in nature which lends itself to being neutral.

The references section is formatted properly and links to the sources function as intended. I think some more secondary sources should be used since the "Early Stages" section is fully written based on the primary source being the Third Woman Press website.

The edits in the introductory portion of the article are valid and help clean the wording and grammar of the writing. In particular, it is nice that citations like "clarification needed" have been removed and/or addressed.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Rafahorle


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


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Third Woman Press

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.)