Hi Michelle and Jessi, I'll be glad to conduct this review. Thanks for your work on it so far; I still have many checks to do on this, but at first glance it looks like quality work. As a side note, I see from your talk pages that you're both seniors, so congrats on presumably being about to graduate!
Here's a few, more to follow later:
Please note that I'm making some minor tweaks as I go, mostly for concision of phrasing and to break up long paragraphs. If you find any of them not to your liking, please feel free to revert--and check to make sure I haven't inadvertently added any new errors.
One minor omission from the lead and body is to give a good fix on what years the movement originated (ditto second-wave feminism). It would also be helpful to also name a few more seminal works in the movement to give a sense of when they were coming out, not as a list, but among the history section. (Also, when did Mohanty's essay "Under Western Eyes" appear?) One section mentions "within the last twenty years", but it would be good to fix this time in years per WP:REALTIME, since the article could still be in use another five or ten years from now. Are there any particular works with which the movement can be said to begin, the way Orientalism or the Feminine Mystique were for their respective movements?
Similarly, it would be helpful if more leading figures in the theory beyond Mohanty if possible. Anne McClintock and Gayatri Spivak might be each worth a mention, though I don't mean to suggest that either is required. Lourde's contribution to the movement could also be clarified in the text. This article does an excellent job of summarizing the main arguments of po-co feminism, but feels a bit context-free; it's not clear what specific debates (in time and place) these theorists have entered in, what figures they've criticized, or what the highlights of their movement have been.
I'd suggest also mentioning some literary authors generally considered to write from a postcolonial feminist perspective like Jamaica Kincaid, Ama Ata Aidoo, Bapsi Sidhwa, Bessie Head, Gloria Anzaldua, and Arundhati Roy.
"This criticism claims that postcolonial feminism is divisive, arguing that the overall feminist movement will be stronger if women can present a united front." -- claims is on the list of words to avoid, since it implies that an argument can't be substantiated. How about "states" or "argues"? -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"So feminist theory during the first century of feminism failed to account for differences between women in terms of race and class—it only addressed the needs and issues of the white, Western women who had started the movement." -- this is a bit of a judgement, and edges up against WP:NPOV. I'd suggest saying "according to later theorists," or some phrase like that.
"by relating gender issues to other spheres of influences within society" -- could you give an example here of what you mean by "spheres of influence"? I wonder if just "influences" would be a better word, if what's mean here are things like race and class.
"when in reality the scope of feminist theory is limited" -- this seems to be a quite POV statement--that "in reality" the po-co feminists are right and mainstream feminists are wrong. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know your thoughts on the above, and thanks again for contributing this high-quality article. Literary theory articles on Wikipedia are often jargon-filled, incoherent disasters; you've done a good job with this one in making it accessible without dumbing it down. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's been a week without response and these areas remain unaddressed, I'm not listing the article at this time. But I do want to note that this was a narrow fail; I hope someone will take it the rest of the way soon. (I may myself, actually). Thanks again for your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]