User:12TBGoat/Young Frankenstein/Isabella.mitrow Peer Review

Yes, the lead has been updated to reflect the new content added, including an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the articles topic. The lead is extremely in depth and I am unsure if all the information provided is necessary. It definitely includes a brief description of the articles major sections, therefore making it out two full body paragraphs. The lead is unique in the sense that it includes how the film was made and what it is technically categorized as, using good descriptive words and linking all terms and concepts for users to click on and learn more about. The lead is definitely concise and includes information present in the article. I do think it may be a little over detailed, however I don't think it hurts providing the reader with all the information they decided to include.

All the content added is relevant to the film (topic) at hand, it is all extremely descriptive. On top of this all of the content added is fully up to date and also references back to when the film was actually created. There is no content missing from this article or any that dos not apply, everything written is where it should be and necessary. Along with this, all of the information added is completely neutral, it also includes scenes which were ultimately removed from and not put into the film. I found this interesting to include and know why particular science would not be included. I wouldn't say there is any bias included in the written work, however they do write about long screening days and such which is not particularly in favor of the screening directors and making it seem like some people casted were not cut out for the time and effort that needed to be put in.

There are a lot of sources, I just can't tell how necessary they are or what is actually from the original wikipedia page. Because as I have stated previously there is an extreme amount of work and detail in this in its entirety. It goes in depth. Also, it is hard to see how many of the sources are actually needed, however there is nothing wrong and never too many sources. I would say the overall organization of this page is well thought out and flows properly, making it seamless for me to read. As well as understand exactly what is being given to me. Overall, you can tell this individual took a lot of time and put a lot of energy into making this wikipedia page actually resemble a true wikipedia page. There are clear differences between the original wikipedia page and what is written in their sandbox draft. I really enjoyed and felt like I saw the move without actually seeing the move due to all the information provided.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

(provide username)


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
(Compose a detailed peer review here, considering each of the key aspects listed above if it is relevant. Consider the guiding questions, and check out the examples of what feedback looks like.)