User talk:Ivy&Fern2003/Women in government/Sefinkel Peer Review

Peer Review
Lead: You have a political recruitment model description underneath the lead. I think this would much better fit under the lead section as it explains what the model does and why people are stuck in the stage they are. This would make the lead stronger as it explains the model in a way that readers can understand before getting into more of the article. Adding the first paragraph (the model description) would help explain the major sections of the coming article.

Content: The content is relevant. However, in the barriers to becoming an elected official section. It feels like there is a lot of information but no organization or reason behind the information there. It is all useful but I think it could be better organized.

Tone and Balance: The article is as neutral as it can be considering the majority of people who focus on women in the political recruitment model are feminist scholars. You do a great job at explaining why women drop out of the model earlier than men. You’ve done a great job at simply being informational rather than being persuasive It is clear in your writing that you are reporting information rather than trying to force someone to think one way or another.

Sources and References: You do a great job at citing all your sources within the article! The sources are exclusively peer reviewed sources which is extremely for a topic such as the political recruitment model which is theoretical in nature. Many of the articles are written by women, the marginalized group.

Organization: The barriers to becoming an elected official section is difficult to read and understand from an outsider perspective.

Images: If you can add the photo of the model, I think that it would be beneficial. Right now, there is no visual aid for visual learners to get the gist of the model.

Sefinkel (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)