User:Nabmpra/Feminism in Indonesia/Bree3rob Peer Review

Peer review

This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

• Whose work are you reviewing? Nebila
• Link to draft you're reviewing: Feminism in Indonesia

Lead

Guiding questions:

• The lead has been updated to reflect new content with a concise and clear topic. The lead states briefly what the article will be about, but missing some points in the article like the activist Dewi Sakarti. I believe the Lead is not overly detailed, yet brief in description.

Content

Guiding questions:

• The content is extremely relevant to the topic, and flows quite well into categories. I believe content added are well up-to-date, nothing over 50 years old. The content achieves in addressing feminism in Indonesia, historically underrepresented and not an active topic of discussion in society.

Tone and Balance

Guiding questions:

• The content added appears to be neutral throughout, taking no side on the topic. There are keywords that reveal to the reader the author is not biased or has an opinion. ("Nonetheless" & "according to") This particular content does not attempt tot persuade me in favor of one position. I read and interpreted the article as if it was meant to inform me about this topic. I do not believe any of the content was underrepresented or overrepresented.

Sources and References

Guiding questions:

• For sources and references, almost every sentence is backed up by a reliable secondary source of information. Each source reflects the topic of choice, or related to the topic of Feminism in Indonesia. Majority, if not all, sources are current and most written by marginalized authors. However, one source I was not able to access or read.

Organization

Guiding questions:

• the content added is well-organized and broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic. I checked for what looked like grammatical errors but were actually correct spelling of some the terminology used in the article. The article is clear and easy to read.

Images and Media

Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media

• The article includes images to enhance the topic and are well-captioned. And the publishing of the images used appear to abide by the copyright Wikipedia regulations. All of the images flow well with the article, giving a sense of place or marker in time regarding the topic. There was no overuse or underuse of images or media.

For New Articles Only

If the draft you're reviewing is a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.

• Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
  • Yes.
• How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
  • The list of sources are lengthy but adequate for the article, as it is quite thorough with a broad perspective.
• Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
  • The article seems to follow a pattern from the "Feminism" wikipedia article. Pictures and images appear all the right of the article, and the chart on the right as for the symbol are the same. Both articles have the same symbol but take on a different purpose.
• Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
  • Yes.

Overall impressions

Guiding questions:

• I think for just starting out, this was a phenomenal article. The sources of choice were well layed out in the article. How well it was organized and I tried not to think about length, but the content used and how. I believe the stengths of the article was the numerical data, dates, terms/language, people and groups utilized to back up the content displayed. I think the content can be improved if more sources were more scholarly articles used to backup the content, and more photos available to attract the reader diving deeper into the article.