Talk:Charlotte Zwerin

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AFishInThePercolator. Peer reviewers: Hwolowitz123, Dr.Strangelove1964.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
There are many strengths to this article including the sources as they seem very reliable as a lot of them are from academic textbooks, ‘An introduction to documentary’ (Nichols), is especially used a lot as well as a textbook by Eric Barnouw. The referencing of these books are also strong as they include the page numbers of where the information was found making it easier to find where the author got certain bits of information. However, it could be considered a weakness that a lot of the sources are from the textbook by Nichols as this means the article could be unbalanced as a lot of it is based on Nichols opinion meaning it is relying too much on a single opinion. Therefore, to improve it the author could use a bigger variety of sources. Other strengths is that the text is engaging and descriptive and is precise with the facts given showing that the author has done a lot of research about the author.

Weaknesses are that the lead is a bit lengthy; I think all is needed for the lead is the first sentence as the information in the second sentence is going to appear later in the article anyway. All is needed at the beginning is one sentence that describes the significance of the person so introduce what the rest of the article will be about. To improve it further I would take out her date of birth in the biography section because it has been mentioned in the lead. This repetition of her date of birth is unnecessary. There are phrases that I don’t think should have been included such as ‘some claim’ as the author hasn’t supported this statement by saying who ‘some’ are. Other phrases come across as slightly biased such as ‘most significant films’, especially when there is no evidence from other people that have claimed her films are ‘most significant’. It appears this phrase is coming from the author rather than an academic source. However, apart from that, the article appears to be neutral as it has been written in an encyclopedic style of writing. Another space for improvement would be to add a picture of the filmmaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwolowitz123 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Firstly, the article is well written and clearly presented. This is best exemplified under your “career” headline, as you briefly but clearly describe the summaries of her films. The biggest strengths of the article include your number of sources and inclusion of academic sources. This adds authenticity and importance to your article. The added links to Zwerin’s film’s Wikipedia articles also serves as a strong element in your article. This allows the viewer to navigate quickly and look at her work in closer detail.

Perhaps, adding a picture and a biography box could add to the visual experience of your article and strengthen the viewer’s conception of the filmmaker. Having a picture of Zwerin would complete your article.

The academic discussion of cinematic styles and formal elements of film included in your article could aid me in my own. Formal elements are essential when discussing film, and greatly added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Strangelove1964 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)