User:Rfgovaerts/First All-Russian Women's Congress/AbigailStern0702 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? Rfgovaerts
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Rfgovaerts/First All-Russian Women's Congress

Guiding Questions:

 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? The Lead (as it is an original article being created) provides a brief definition of the topic being covered in the article, and explains what the article goes on to describe in terms of the two congresses. It could be mildly more descriptive in when and where the Congress was created, in addition to describing what the Congress was composed of.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Yes - the introductory sentence defines the First All-Russian Women’s Congress and provides a rough timeline of when the two congresses (under the umbrella definition of the First All-Russian Women’s Congress) took place. It could be just a bit more descriptive in explaining the significance of this Congress at the start very briefly, as to alert the reader to the importance of the topic and why it was influential.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? The Lead very briefly describes the sections of the article (not the Legacy section, as it does not mention much in terms of the significance of the First All-Russian Women’s Congress) but it does introduce the two congresses that make up the First All-Russian Women’s Congress as events to later be explained in the article. However, it merely mentions them; it does not necessarily describe much more about the congresses other than the date they were organized, and by whom.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? All of the information mentioned in the Lead is present and described throughout the article.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? The Lead is concise - definitely not overly detailed, and it could probably be even more descriptive with regards to the topics being discussed (maybe providing a short, concise summary of each congress so the reader can get a vague idea of what is to be covered more in depth in the later sections).

Lead evaluation
The Lead is short and succinct, and covers most of the points that are to be outlined and explained in the article. It could be slightly more descriptive in its mentions of the two congresses, as it only mentions them, and could be improved by perhaps adding a short summary of what the congresses discussed. Additionally, a brief explanation of the importance of the First All-Russian Women’s Congress could be added, as it’s covered later on in the Legacy section but is not wholly evident from the start.

Guiding Questions:

 * Is the content added relevant to the topic? The content is very relevant to the topic, as the content explains the two congresses that defined the First All-Russian Women’s Congress, and the influences the congresses had later on with regards to the role women were able to play later on in the Bolshevik party.
 * Is the content added up-to-date? The content not only corresponds to the time period of the content being discussed, but also references from later years are utilized as well, which gives the impression of the content being up-to-date and correct.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? As the sections of the two congresses are very detailed and extensive in their descriptions, I don’t imagine that there is much missing from the content. The majority of the content seems to belong within the article, and every piece of information seems to relate to the topic accordingly.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Possibly - the topic does address women in the Soviet Union, who could technically constitute a historically underrepresented group, but as the article depicts the growing representation of women in the political arena, it could go either way in terms of whether or not women in the Soviet Union could be called an “underrepresented minority”.

Content evaluation
The content appears to be thorough, descriptive, and put in organized chronological order of events (corresponding to each section). My only remarks with regards to things that could be changed would be that some of the phrasing could be more concise, and that instead of referencing the opinions of several historians about the topic, maybe simply rephrasing their points would suffice.

Guiding Questions:

 * Is the content added neutral? The content added in the article appears to be definitely neutral, with no evident biases towards one particular side or the other. The facts in each section are delivered straightforwardly, and there are no strong opinions displayed that could sway a reader to one side of the other.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? There are no claims that appear to be biased towards a particular side.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? In my opinion, there does not seem to be any overriding or overwhelming perspectives that are dominate the article.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? The content is not presented in a persuasive manner, nor is it biased towards one particular viewpoint, and seems to be very neutral.

Tone and balance evaluation
The tone of the article and its content is neutral, with no real visible biases or preferences in terms of perspective. The content comes from a variety of sources and displays several viewpoints, and does not appear to favor any source over another.

Guiding Questions:

 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? The sources used appear to be reliable, and the content is cited from sources thoroughly during the course of the article. All of the points made seem to be backed up from the sources utilized.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? The sources are credible and well-cited, but a criticism could be that most of the information presented throughout the article appears to be coming from the same five or six sources. I’m not quite sure if this is the extent of the literature on this particular topic, but I believe that a bit more variety of sources could likely be added to support the content even more
 * Are the sources current? The sources correspond to the time period of the content effectively, but perhaps more current evaluations of the information could be utilized as well?
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Many of the authors of the sources (including some direct primary sources, such as Alexandra Kollontai) are women, which is gratifying to see in an article wherein the topic is related to women.
 * Check a few links. Do they work? Both of the links for the a few of the sources provided (most of the sources did not have links) unfortunately did not work - whether or not this was the fault of the writer or not, I’m not sure, but none of the pages from the links for the sources could be found.

Sources and references evaluation
The sources seem to be well-used throughout the article and support the material described throughout. However, perhaps a larger variety of sources could be used to expand that support even more - and maybe rechecking some of the links to the sources might be beneficial as well.

Guiding Questions:

 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? The content of the article is thorough, detailed, and for the most part, clear. Certain parts, however, could probably be rephrased to make them more concise and easier for the reader to comprehend (some grammatical restructuring could be helpful in places). In addition, paragraph breaks could also be used to break up the section a bit, if doing so would make it easier to read.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? There did not seem to be any spelling errors or grammatical issues; however, maybe some sentences could be restructured in terms of their grammar to make them more concise.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? The content is organized into the points outlined in the Lead section - the two congresses described in their own sections, as well as a final section outlining the impact of the congresses. It is very clear which sections are being described, and it is organized chronologically, which is helpful.

Organization evaluation
Aside from perhaps a few grammatical changes, the organization and the syntactical elements of the article contain very few issues. The article is organized relatively clearly and chronologically, and the writing is well-phrased.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * No images or media have been added thus far.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? It appears that this subject has had significant coverage through several reliable sources, with no original research by the user, and no sources used that would present a biased narrative.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject? While I’m not by any means an expert on the literature that may be available with regards to this topic, more sources could probably be found and added to support the information outlined in the article even more thoroughly. The sources used are definitely appropriate for the topic, but more could likely be utilized in addition.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles? The section headings are clearly present in the article, as well as the presence of a Lead section, and the material is organized in accordance with the sections.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? Yes, the user inserts the links to other relevant Wikipedia pages throughout the article.

New Article Evaluation
This new article outlining the topic is fairly strong, with several sources used that correspond to the time period in which the material of the article is focused. It is organized well, with section headings and a Lead section, as well as a list of References.

Guiding Questions:

 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? As this article being drafted is a new article entirely, it introduces new information to be had about perhaps previously mentioned topics, and fleshes out these topics into an article that is thorough and detailed.
 * What are the strengths of the content added? The content of the article is detailed, descriptive, organized effectively and chronologically, and presented with no apparent bias towards any particular perspective over another. It provides a thorough summary of the two congresses (1908 and 1918) that compose the First All-Russian Women’s Congress, and to some extent, the impact of these congresses in the years after.
 * How can the content added be improved? The article could possibly be improved with some slight grammatical changes in terms of structure (to make the writing a bit clearer for the reader), the sources used could be expanded on to include somewhat more of a variety, and the significance of the Congress (in addition to some other elements to be possibly introduced in the Lead section) could be expanded on slightly.

Overall evaluation
Other than the small changes described above, this article is detailed and gives a strong sense of the topic. It is organized effectively, written and phrased (for the most part) well, and supported by several strong sources that correlate to the topic. All the points introduced are cited from sources, and there are no biases present in the information.