User:SageOfSaudade/Women's Democratic Movement/TerrenceLY Peer Review

General info
SageOfSaudade
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:SageOfSaudade/Women's Democratic Movement
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

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: The lead section does a very good, and very concise, job of introducing the Women's Democratic Movement and the key elements of it that will be discussed in the article, such as when it was active and it's Communist associations. However, I think the final statement "the Communist Party of Spain, which was --- at the time --- also active despite repression" is unnecessary. While it's helpful to bring up the Movement's Communist associations in the lead section, I think any extra details about the Communist Party of Spain that don't directly relate to the main topic, like the "repression" they faced at the time, feels a little extraneous.

Content: This article is incredibly dense with strong information that gives me a very full understanding of the Women's Democratic Movement. The only issue I found with the content were a few grammatical mistakes, or places where I felt that the sentences could be rewritten in order to be a little clearer. For example, the first sentence in the "MDM's Organizing/Activism" section is a little confusing.

Tone and Balance: Overall this article has a very neutral tone and presents only facts. The only instance I found where the tone arguably seemed biased is the use of the word "Interestingly" in the "Organizing/Activism" section. Just deleting this one word would make the entire sentence seem much more neutral.

Sources and References: The sources all seem reputable, and there is a good variety of different types of sources as well as different times from which the sources come. However I think the sources should be cited directly in the article body more frequently, that way it is easier to keep track of where every new piece of information is coming from.

Organization: In general I think it is smart to organize the information chronologically. However, looking at your draft outline, maybe you could switch the establishment of the movement and the context and early history, that way when someone is reading the article, they will already have an understanding of the historical context of this movement before you get into the details of how the movement initially formed. I also think that having one header titled "History" and a different one titled "Historical Context" is a bit confusing. My last suggestion is to possibly split up the body of your article into more paragraphs, that way we are not looking at a large block of unbroken text.

Overall Impressions: This article is incredibly well researched and has no shortage of relevant information. It would be strengthened by refining the organization of information and the formatting of the page.