Peer Review

I thought that your addition to the article was fairly good. I think that you had a lot of long quotes within your part that seemed a little excessive. Also some of your sentences sound very opinionated especially when you are discussing the regime and put exact timelines to things if you know them. For example, instead of saying something happened for a very long time give the exact year timeline so that we can know exactly what you are talking about. Overall I think your contributions were good they just need less quotes and more statements with a little bit more of unbiased language. Great start to you article!Thomasonmariah (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

Great contribution! You provided facts and figures that strengthened your contributions. You have four key sources and incorporate them very well. I feel your article is objective and insightful. Although there may appear to be a bias as Mariah point out, your objective use of facts and document citation shows that you are meerly presenting the unfortunate aspects of history, not siding with them. Great job! I would only work to provide more information and more context to the article-- simple expansion on what great work you've already done. Maybe talk about existing women's organizations that merged to form the GUSW and how their goals were preserved, etc. Good luck! JTHicks (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review

This is a very strong, well written section but I did notice that you quoted directly from your cited source for a couple of lines. This violates the policies of Wikipedia. On the training for plagiarism, Wikipedia states that, only quotes which are very short and necessary for the understanding of the subject are okay to directly quote. So for this part, it may be better to paraphrase in your own words what it is that was said in your cited material. Caleavy (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]