User:Sk8trgrl/Cathy Bernheim/Charmelon1 Peer Review

General info
Sk8tergrl and Cathy Bernheim
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Sk8trgrl/Cathy Bernheim
 * 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: Has an introductory sentence that describes the topic of the article. While the introductory sentence/paragraph does summarizes parts of their article, there are certain aspects that are left out such as her early life their fascination with their jewish ancestors etc. However, despite this they do mention some of the more important events of her life such as some of the movements this person was involved in. The lead in general is very concise in getting to show us who this person is, however I think you can add variety into how you introduce the information. I think you can combine the first two sentences and definitely add more about her early life and her background.

Content: For the most part everything seems up to date and relevant to your topic. The one thing I guess I can comment on is the use of quotes. I'm not sure what the guidelines for those are but if they're fair game then ignore this. Other than that I can tell you did a lot odf wrk. I am not sure if it is unfinished but there is limited information, which of course is fine if the sources are limited.

Tone and Balance: As for your tone it does seem to be neutral. I think the one line that might stick out is saying "Her work can be considered unique and truly one of a kind". While this can be true, it does sound a bit biased in her favor and we are trying to be a neutral as possible when presenting this person or movement etc. One other thing is you mention "She is also known to be a feminist activist and is one of the pioneers of the Mouvement de Libération des Femmes and Gouines Rouges" twice in your article. I don't know if this was intentional but it might be better if it is only mentioned once. Other than that I feel as if the article is well balanced and isn't really trying to convince me of anything, you are simply presenting the facts.

Sources: Sources seem relevant to your topic in your article. I have nothing to comment really.

Final Comments: Overall a good article and you have a solid foundation. You can take into consideration the comments I made and suggestions or not thats okay. Solid article and I think it is very informative.