User:Lakeley/Adina Pintilie/McLaren481 Peer Review

Peer review Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects: Lead Guiding questions: Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer? Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic? Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections? Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article? Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed? Content Guiding questions: Is the content added relevant to the topic? Is the content added up-to-date? Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong? Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics? Tone and Balance Guiding questions: Is the content added neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented? Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another? Sources and References Guiding questions: Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information? Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.) Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic? Are the sources current? Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible? Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.) Check a few links. Do they work? Organization Guiding questions: Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read? Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors? Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic? Images and Media 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? For New Articles Only If the draft you're reviewing is for 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? Overall impressions Guiding questions: Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete? What are the strengths of the content added? How can the content added be improved? Examples of good feedback A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of "Homemaking" Peer review of this article about a famous painting Additional Resources Check out the Editing Wikipedia PDF for general editing tips and suggestions.

General info

Whose work are you reviewing?

Lakeley

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lakeley/Adina_Pintilie?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Adina Pintilie

Evaluate the drafted changes

Lead: I can see the vision you have for the lead. I like the idea of giving a quick overview of her kind of work. Your opening sentence, however, is a little too biased, it is communicating the subjective opinion that she is successful and that she should be recognized in a different way. Perhaps you could instead open by stating what she is known for. The content of the third sentence is interesting, it might be made clearer and easier to follow by adding comas or modifying the structure. The overall length of the section is good, I would just maybe include one punchy sentence that sums up the basic information: her name, origin, and work she is most known for.

Content: The content you've included is thorough in its analysis of her work, but there is perhaps an imbalance of career versus biographical information; is there any information to be found about her life and upbringing, her schooling?

Tone and balance: The tone of the article shows a little too much bias; perhaps removing adjectives could help reduce the impression that you are trying to persuade the reader of her talent. For example, rather than "She is still very active in her career, hoping to create more incredible work", you could say "She remains an active filmmaker, with more projects to come." That being said, you did not provide a source at the end of this sentence, so make sure that there is evidence to support the idea of upcoming work! Also, the descriptions of her work should be identified more clearly so that it doesn't seem like your interpretation, for example, "It is described to be a large therapy session in which you serve as the therapist for three separate patients who are dealing with challenges connected to intimacy and human connection (Ehrlich, 2018)." Here, you should identify the author who described it this way explicitly so that their authority can be taken into consideration; this will help make it seem less like a persuasive article.

References and Sources: You cite your sources consistently throughout the text. Try using the Wikipedia footnote system so that the in-text citations lead directly to the reference section. As for the reference list, be sure that your URLs are functional and permanent, this one - Goodfellow, M. (2018, January 30). Log in - proquest. Doc & Film boards Adina Pintilie’s Berlin Copetition title “Touch Me Not” (exclusive). https://www.proquest.com/Account/Login - for instance, is not an accessible one, and the reference does not indicate what the source actually is.

Organization: The organization of your thoughts can be hard to follow due to some syntax peculiarities. Notably, a lot of your sentences are not full sentences. For example, a sentence like "Co-founder of Manekino Film as well as a director and film writer (Goodfellow, 2018)." is lacking a subject and verb to make it a complete thought. You could say "Pintilie is the co-founder of Manekino Film as well as a director and film writer" instead. Another way to smooth things out would be to connect certain sentences. For example, connect these two sentences: "Using her love for art in her films to express subjects that can illustrate diverse opinions in society. She works to illustrate the issue of national representation during the last two decades (Goodfellow, 2018)." It would become "Using her love for art in her films to express subjects that can illustrate diverse opinions in society, she works to illustrate the issue of national representation during the last two decades (Goodfellow, 2018)." Avoid starting sentences with gerunds (verbs ending in ing [ex. running] because this does not function as a full sentence. For example, "Working to convey a strong message to society about these at times sensitive topics that are often ignored and misrepresented" should be "She works to convey a strong message to society about these at times sensitive topics that are often ignored and misrepresented." instead.

The order of your ideas is well organized.

Overall impression: Your article definitely adds more content and more detail to the original article. I think it would benefit from more information about the author to balance with the information about her work. There is great detail about the meaning behind her work, I think this could only be improved by removing some of the bias.