User:Ryebreadm3/Katowice Conference/Beachpineapples Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

ryebreadm3


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ryebreadm3/Katowice_Conference?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Katowice Conference
 * Katowice Conference

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.)

Lead: There is no lead information in the user sandbox. The existing lead in the article seems to cover most of what the article discusses, but maybe you could add some information about the central committee, which you discuss in your sandbox, to the lead.

Content: The content is relevant to the topic. It seems as though the first paragraph of the "Decisions" section is already published in the article. The content added in the following paragraph seems to be up-to-date. I don't see any content that strikes me as out of place, but I definitely think that you could expand more on some of what you have added. What was the committee fundraising for? From whom were committee members attempting to raise money? Why did the fundraising fail? I think finding sources to answer these questions and then explicitly stating the answers might help ensure that your reader understands the context of the article and is not guessing at what you mean. The content addressed is related to a historically underrepresented population.

Tone/Balance: The content added to this article is neutral, and I don't think that there is any strong bias or attempt to persuade a reader. I don't think there are any viewpoints that are overrepresented or underrepresented, but I think that some more context about PICA could be nice for a reader. What was its mission? When was it founded?

Sources/References: All new content seems to be backed up by reliable secondary sources, but you could likely find better articles with more specific information. It appears as though you've added a source to content that was already in the article. There are definitely more sources on this topic from which you could glean further insights into the Conference and the committee, but I think that the sources you have support the content you have written well. The sources you used are current. There are definitely some scholarly articles you could use which would likely give you more in-depth information on your subject matter. JSTOR is likely a good place to start looking for such articles. There are only two sources, so they don't really represent a range of anything. The links worked when I clicked on them.

Organization: The content is very concise. I think you could maybe try to connect the last sentence that you added to the sentence about Kalischer. There are no grammatical errors, but the Z in Zionism should be capitalized.

Media/Images: N/A

Overall: The content added has improved the article, but I think you could delve into the information you presented more, and maybe expound on some of the things you mentioned, such as the committee. The content added provides context to some of the content already in the article, but could be improved with some more detail.