User:Zmbashir/Women’s Center For Legal Aid and Counseling (WCLAC)/Dtzung Peer Review

General info
Zmbashir, DinoLover34, SarahKoussa, Faith.m7
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Zmbashir/Women’s Center For Legal Aid and Counseling (WCLAC)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead:


 * All the crucial information seems to be included in your introduction. I would suggest combining the first two sentences into one longer introductory sentence that covers all the basics of the WCLAC.
 * Beyond the introductory sentence though, the lead should also have a brief description of the major sections that you decided to include in the article. So, it would be good to add a couple more paragraphs to the lead in order to concisely touch on all the topics that will be discussed later on in the article.
 * The writing style of the introduction is very concise which is good, so keep that up as you add in the rest of the lead.
 * It seems like the second lead adds just a little extra information to what is already covered in the first so maybe consider integrating that information into the larger lead section as you add more?

Content


 * All the content included appears to be relevant and up-to-date. I don't think anything needs to be removed.
 * However, in terms of what could be added, I think the article would benefit from some more specifics on what actions the WCLAC has actually taken since its inception. I don't know if your sources offered any additional details on the specific accomplishments or contributions of the WCLAC. But, if those details are available, I think it would be really beneficial to follow up on all the stuff about the WCLAC's mission and purpose with a direct retelling of the group's major accomplishments.
 * In general, the content you chose to include is really strong though. However, I would suggest considering the possibility of changing the structure/order of the article. I got a little bit confused because you start with a section on the group's foundation and then go into a bit of the historical/cultural context and then have another section related to foundation (although this one seems to be focused on the 1998 Palestinian Model Parliament). From my read, it seems like it might be best to start with a bit of the historical context first and then go into why the group was founded in 1991 (including what the mission is, etc.) and then after that explain why the WCLAC started the Palestinian Model Parliament came.

Tone and Balance


 * All the content in the first few sections was neutral.
 * However, for the section titled "Contemporary Response and Goals" I would suggest going back through and removing words that carry a more passionate/emotional tone. For example, in the sentence, "The prevailing context reveals an alarming absence of..." it would be best to remove the word "alarming" as this indicates some amount of bias.
 * With respect to overrepresenting certain viewpoints, it might be good to include a section on any groups which opposed the WCLAC. I don't know if your sources actually have any information on this but it would be helpful to include for balance.

Sources and References


 * Assuming that the sources included at the ends of paragraphs/sentences are all for multiple sentences in the article, it seems like all the content is backed up by a reliable secondary source. When you eventually put them in as official Wikipedia citations, I would suggest including the citations at the end of almost every sentence rather than at the end of an entire paragraph just to avoid any plagiarism issues.
 * Because the sources aren't linked on the document yet with a references section, it is hard for me to tell whether the content is true to the sources. Additionally, I cannot determine whether the sources are all current or not, or whether they represent a diverse spectrum of authors. Hopefully this is all true, but if not maybe consider conducting an additional search for literature and include a few more sections in the article to use these new sources.

Organization


 * In terms of the order that the content is presented, please refer back to my comments in the content section. Additionally, maybe consider adding subheadings for greater clarity. When sections are too long/cover too many topics, it's possible that readers will get a bit confused.
 * There were a few grammatical errors, so I would suggest going back through the article and just cleaning things up a bit. The writing style is generally very good though.

Images and Media


 * I don't see any images.

New Articles


 * Based on the sources that you have listed, it seems like your article will meet Wikipedia's notability requirements.
 * It's difficult to tell how exhaustive your list of sources is but I see a mix of books and articles so I'm assuming it is a comprehensive list.
 * In terms of structuring the article like other Wikipedia articles, maybe consider looking up a group similar to the WCLAC and draw inspiration from the headings/subheadings that they use.
 * Additionally, I saw a couple notes about where you might want to hyperlink to other Wikipedia articles, but just continue thinking about what other specific groups/people might be worth linking to.

Overall impressions


 * Considering that you were starting a new article, your draft seems like a great start. You covered all the basics and basically just have to polish things up at this point.
 * My main suggestions would be to reorder things a little bit, add some subheadings or some new sections, link all of your citations and add a reference section, and hyperlink to other Wikipedia pages.