User talk:Gsx1/Identity Politics

Peer Review

Overall, I think the article is really well-written. I really love how comprehensive, yet understandable, the critiques and criticisms of identity politics and the intersectional critiques sections are. But there is no verification of any of the statements in these sections or any others, except for Asian-American Identity Politics. I’m not sure if these are sections you plan on editing/expanding, but I can see on the published article page that these other sections have sources. One aspect that can definitely be improved is expanding the array groups in the racial and ethnocultural section. A section on Latinx/Hispanic identity politics needs to be included. There should also be expansion of the Muslim identity politics and Maori identity politics because they are very short in comparison to the other groups in this section. It also might be interesting to add in Native American identity politics as they are also an underrepresented group. In terms of completeness, I think the article is pretty well-developed, but more underrepresented groups need to be covered and there needs to be more sources cited (if these are the sections you plan on editing). Devikajhaveri (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

On the surface, The Identity Politics Wikipedia article is undeniably a robust investigation of the history of the concept and its current applications. The page excels at presenting an immense amount of nuance in the form of different critiques and interpretations of the term, backed by a wide range of credible scholars and reporters. That being said, the article in its current form feels a tad-bit disjointed, as the lead-in section of the article does not closely resemble the layout of the ensuing page. Furthermore, certain pieces of information regarding the nature of identity politics seem to contradict one another, solidifying a sense that the article represents several distinct chunks rather than one holistic piece. Additionally, not all subsections are equally extensive, as the gender category specifically mentions the nature of politics being “gendered”, but provides no concrete examples of what that tangibly looks like. Lastly, the literature has a heavy slant towards American viewpoints and perspective on the issue, obscuring the globe’s variety of different experiences with the concept of identity politics. In short, the page does seem well-developed, but more work must be done to connect its pieces of information together and expand upon its slightly undeveloped sections.--Hunerwithat (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)