User talk:Fudgevillain/Grey years

Whose work are you reviewing?

Fudgevillain (provide username)

Link to draft you're reviewing

User:Fudgevillain/Grey years

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

User:Fudgevillain/Grey years

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.)

The draft you are writing is way better written than the original version, much more organized and more informative. The lead seems to be concise with the right amount of details. As for the content, you have added relevant information to your topic by using multiple sources. While reading the page, I found it very useful that you used internal links which makes it easier for the reader to understand who or what you are referring to.

You used a lot of sources that reflect how much research you have done about the topic. All of the sources seem to be reliable and many are peer-reviewed articles which is excellent.

Comparing the original article and the article you created, there has been great change in the organization of the Wiki-page. It is helpful that you included a section specifically for "implications." There also seems to be little to no grammar errors throughout your page. A small error I noted was in your background section it reads; "This signaled to intellectuals that there were clear limitations to their actions and that their freedoms were "subordinated to political power." I would remove the common after the word "actions." Another small error was in the development section, it says One of Pavón's victims, Cuban poet and playwright Antón Arrufat, was forced to perform manual labor in a library basement and banned from writing or publishing for over a decade. In this sentence, I would add a comma after the word "poet."

For images and media, I would recommend posting a couple of photographs if possible, of course following the copyright guidelines.

- The article does meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. There are multiple reliable secondary sources provided.

The article is well organized with multiple section headings, in paragraph format which appears professional.

I think you have a well-developed page with a lot of research and investigation done about the topic. I learned so much about the grey years just by reading your page. There is nothing that I can think of that you can fix, maybe just adding images to make it look 'appealing.'