This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? Miss.Ashlyn
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Miss.Ashlyn/sandbox
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - no, the lead has not yet been updated to reflect the new content.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - the introductory sentence is concise, but could include more information to give a better description of the subject. For instance, "Shulamith 'Shulie' Firestone was a Canadian-American radical feminist" could be amended to also describe Firestone as a writer and activist, and maybe a Jewish person as well.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - no, the lead only refers to the sections on Firestone as a radical feminist and her most influential work. It does not mention the sections on early life, education and 'Shulie', mental illness, and death and legacy.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - no, it does not.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - the lead is concise, but perhaps too concise.
The lead reflects some of the new content added. While it does mention The Dialect of Sex, it doesn't mention the influence of this work on other feminist movements, like cyberfeminism or the Women's Liberation Movement, or that the work is still relevant in the 21st century in university courses. The introductory sentence is true, but could include more detail. A better introductory sentence might be "Shulamith 'Shulie' Firestone was a Canadian-American radical feminist, activist, and writer." Additionally, the lead refers to "second-wave feminism." An easy way to improve this statement is perhaps to insert a reference to the notion of six feminist waves, which can be found in Tjitske Akkerman and Siep Stuurman's article on eclass. The lead does not briefly describe the article's major sections, with the sections on early life, education, mental illness, and death and legacy notably absent. The other sections are perhaps too briefly summarized, with a very short and simple overview of her involvement in some radical feminist group and her most influential work. Overall, I appreciate that this is only a first draft and that the lead will likely be the last section you update!
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
- Is the content added up-to-date? - yes, the content is up-to-date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - there is no irrelevant content. However, the article could benefit from more content on the context of feminism, like other feminists, feminist movements, and feminist schools of thought Firestone was connected to. I've also listed some extra events I've found in my research that haven't been mentioned in the article yet, and a bit about the role of religion.
The section on the Dialectic of Sex mentions the synthesis of the theories of "Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Simone de Beauvoir into a radical feminist theory of politics," but doesn't elaborate on how these thinkers influenced the ways of thinking of the time. For instance, according to https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/15/death-of-a-revolutionary , the whole work was dedicated to Simone de Beauvoir, an extremely significant feminist whose book "The Second Sex" is still influential today. To make this section more neutral, you might include other theorists' perspectives on Firestone's idea about the equality of the sexes. Additionally, presenting a wide variety of conflicting perspectives and responses would demonstrate why Firestone is and was considered a radical feminist. Additionally, Firestone was also directly and indirectly connected to several other feminists, like Chude Pam Allen, Carol Giardina, and Ti-Grace Atkinson through the Radical Feminist Movement.
Although Firestone is most clearly connected to radical feminism, but other scholars have also connected her to xenofeminism ( http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia31/parrhesia31_konior.pdf). Some research might show how Firestone is also connected to the Reproductive justice movement and the bra burning movement. Additionally, like queer theorists who advocate for the acceptance of a family model with two same-sex parents, Firestone has her own theory for the acceptable family structure, so there is a small connection there as well!
The article might also benefit from a section on religion, other than what is included in the early life section. Religion seems to be a common factor in feminism, and personally, as a Jewish person, I find a lack of connection to Jewish feminism in many conversations about feminism. I'm not sure what the connection would be, other than her outright rejection of religion, but maybe you can find something?
Finally, I've found some other cool events that Firestone took part in that haven't been mentioned in the article yet: (see https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/15/death-of-a-revolutionary)
- 1969: organized the first abortion protest in America
- organized a 'Burial of Traditional Womanhood'
- held an "ogle-in" to make men the subjects of the female gaze in public (a reversal of the 'male gaze')
- She was also connected to the National Organization for Women
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? - yes, the added content is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - no, but a large portion of the article is devoted to radical feminism.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Radical feminism occupies a large portion of the content.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? - the added content provides a thorough biographical account of firestone, but accepts her work as controversial without explaining who would perceive it that way and why.
Overall, the article is not entirely neutral in tone, as a large part of the article is devoted to radical feminism. More explanation about why this position was controversial, possibly utilizing other feminist schools of thought, would do much to neutralize the tone of the article. So far, the article really frames Firestone's work as controversial without providing conflicting perspectives to explain why some people would view it as controversial. Does that make sense?
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - yes, all content is supported by a reliable secondary source of information.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - yes, the 43 references listed feature a significant number of journal articles and other scholarly sources on various subjects.
- Are the sources current? - yes, they are relatively current.
- Check a few links. Do they work? - one link didn't go through because it requires a subscription to the associated newspaper. However, I tried several other links as well, and they all worked.
All of the content is cited, and there is a significant number of diverse resources (including several journal articles), most of the links I tried work, and the sources are current.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - yes, the content added is well-written and concise.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - no, there are no writing errors.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes, the content is well-structured.
The content is well-written. There are no spelling or grammatical errors, it is concise and easy to read, and it is well-structured.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
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?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- 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?
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - yes, the added content has significantly improved the quality of the article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? - all of the information is support by credible works,
- How can the content added be improved? - update the lead to reflect the new content (probably at the end of the writing process), address multiple viewpoints to ensure neutrality, and perhaps add some pictures!
The added information significantly fills in the content gaps of the original article. The information is credible, well-organized, and well-written. There could be some more information added, as I've detailed above, but overall, the article is very thorough. The biggest improvement would be addressing conflicting perspectives on feminism and Firestone to ensure the neutrality of the article, and ensure that the article doesn't unintentionally frame Firestone as an obviously controversial person. Other than that, the lead could use some updating, but I'm sure this step is best saved for last. Lastly, you might also choose to add some pictures!
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.
- Whose work are you reviewing? Miss.Ashlyn
- Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Miss.Ashlyn/sandbox
Guiding questions:
- Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? - no, the lead has not yet been updated to reflect the new content.
- Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? - the introductory sentence is concise, but could include more information to give a better description of the subject. For instance, "Shulamith 'Shulie' Firestone was a Canadian-American radical feminist" could be amended to also describe Firestone as a writer and activist, and maybe a Jewish person as well.
- Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? - no, the lead only refers to the sections on Firestone as a radical feminist and her most influential work. It does not mention the sections on early life, education and 'Shulie', mental illness, and death and legacy.
- Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? - no, it does not.
- Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? - the lead is concise, but perhaps too concise.
The lead reflects some of the new content added. While it does mention The Dialect of Sex, it doesn't mention the influence of this work on other feminist movements, like cyberfeminism or the Women's Liberation Movement, or that the work is still relevant in the 21st century in university courses. The introductory sentence is true, but could include more detail. A better introductory sentence might be "Shulamith 'Shulie' Firestone was a Canadian-American radical feminist, activist, and writer." Additionally, the lead refers to "second-wave feminism." An easy way to improve this statement is perhaps to insert a reference to the notion of six feminist waves, which can be found in Tjitske Akkerman and Siep Stuurman's article on eclass. The lead does not briefly describe the article's major sections, with the sections on early life, education, mental illness, and death and legacy notably absent. The other sections are perhaps too briefly summarized, with a very short and simple overview of her involvement in some radical feminist group and her most influential work. Overall, I appreciate that this is only a first draft and that the lead will likely be the last section you update!
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added relevant to the topic? - yes, the content added is relevant to the topic.
- Is the content added up-to-date? - yes, the content is up-to-date.
- Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? - there is no irrelevant content. However, the article could benefit from more content on the context of feminism, like other feminists, feminist movements, and feminist schools of thought Firestone was connected to. I've also listed some extra events I've found in my research that haven't been mentioned in the article yet, and a bit about the role of religion.
The section on the Dialectic of Sex mentions the synthesis of the theories of "Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Reich, Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, and Simone de Beauvoir into a radical feminist theory of politics," but doesn't elaborate on how these thinkers influenced the ways of thinking of the time. For instance, according to https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/15/death-of-a-revolutionary , the whole work was dedicated to Simone de Beauvoir, an extremely significant feminist whose book "The Second Sex" is still influential today. To make this section more neutral, you might include other theorists' perspectives on Firestone's idea about the equality of the sexes. Additionally, presenting a wide variety of conflicting perspectives and responses would demonstrate why Firestone is and was considered a radical feminist. Additionally, Firestone was also directly and indirectly connected to several other feminists, like Chude Pam Allen, Carol Giardina, and Ti-Grace Atkinson through the Radical Feminist Movement.
Although Firestone is most clearly connected to radical feminism, but other scholars have also connected her to xenofeminism ( http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia31/parrhesia31_konior.pdf). Some research might show how Firestone is also connected to the Reproductive justice movement and the bra burning movement. Additionally, like queer theorists who advocate for the acceptance of a family model with two same-sex parents, Firestone has her own theory for the acceptable family structure, so there is a small connection there as well!
The article might also benefit from a section on religion, other than what is included in the early life section. Religion seems to be a common factor in feminism, and personally, as a Jewish person, I find a lack of connection to Jewish feminism in many conversations about feminism. I'm not sure what the connection would be, other than her outright rejection of religion, but maybe you can find something?
Finally, I've found some other cool events that Firestone took part in that haven't been mentioned in the article yet: (see https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/04/15/death-of-a-revolutionary)
- 1969: organized the first abortion protest in America
- organized a 'Burial of Traditional Womanhood'
- held an "ogle-in" to make men the subjects of the female gaze in public (a reversal of the 'male gaze')
- She was also connected to the National Organization for Women
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added neutral? - yes, the added content is neutral.
- Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? - no, but a large portion of the article is devoted to radical feminism.
- Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? - Radical feminism occupies a large portion of the content.
- Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favour of one position or away from another? - the added content provides a thorough biographical account of firestone, but accepts her work as controversial without explaining who would perceive it that way and why.
Overall, the article is not entirely neutral in tone, as a large part of the article is devoted to radical feminism. More explanation about why this position was controversial, possibly utilizing other feminist schools of thought, would do much to neutralize the tone of the article. So far, the article really frames Firestone's work as controversial without providing conflicting perspectives to explain why some people would view it as controversial. Does that make sense?
Guiding questions:
- Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? - yes, all content is supported by a reliable secondary source of information.
- Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? - yes, the 43 references listed feature a significant number of journal articles and other scholarly sources on various subjects.
- Are the sources current? - yes, they are relatively current.
- Check a few links. Do they work? - one link didn't go through because it requires a subscription to the associated newspaper. However, I tried several other links as well, and they all worked.
All of the content is cited, and there is a significant number of diverse resources (including several journal articles), most of the links I tried work, and the sources are current.
Guiding questions:
- Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? - yes, the content added is well-written and concise.
- Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? - no, there are no writing errors.
- Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? - yes, the content is well-structured.
The content is well-written. There are no spelling or grammatical errors, it is concise and easy to read, and it is well-structured.
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media
- Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
- Are images well-captioned?
- Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
- Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
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?
- How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
- 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?
- Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
Guiding questions:
- Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? - yes, the added content has significantly improved the quality of the article.
- What are the strengths of the content added? - all of the information is support by credible works,
- How can the content added be improved? - update the lead to reflect the new content (probably at the end of the writing process), address multiple viewpoints to ensure neutrality, and perhaps add some pictures!
The added information significantly fills in the content gaps of the original article. The information is credible, well-organized, and well-written. There could be some more information added, as I've detailed above, but overall, the article is very thorough. The biggest improvement would be addressing conflicting perspectives on feminism and Firestone to ensure the neutrality of the article, and ensure that the article doesn't unintentionally frame Firestone as an obviously controversial person. Other than that, the lead could use some updating, but I'm sure this step is best saved for last. Lastly, you might also choose to add some pictures!