User:Cadebabade/Marleen Gorris/Orilta Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing (provide username) ?
 * Cadebade
 * Link to draft you're reviewing :
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cadebabade/Marleen_Gorris?veaction=edit&preload=Template%3ADashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists) :
 * Marleen Gorris

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.)

Positive aspects of the draft


 * I found the lead section particularly well-structured. It provides enough information to give us a sense of what it is about while making us curious to go further in the article (especially to learn how she did reflect her commitment to feminist, gay and lesbian issues in her work).
 * It is great to specify that she is queer, but you should maybe mention the source in which it is overtly stated.
 * The whole research work on Gorris's films' reception is particularly well highlighted and complete since it exposes different points of view.
 * The article reflects a great use of references that come from diverse and reliable sources.

What can potentially be improved


 * I feel that the sentence "In 1995, the Netherlands won an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film for her film, Antonia's Line making her the first woman to win an award in this category." is strangely formulated as it is not properly the Netherlands that won the award: She won the award while representing her country in this category (but that is a very minor issue).
 * It is not quite clear if you intend to keep the first 3 sentences of the initial "Article Body" section since they don't appear on your draft while they provide important information (Gorris's relationship to the work of Chantal Akerman).
 * There is a lack of basic biographical elements at the beginning of the "Article Body", such as information on the place Marleen Gorris grew up or the studies she pursued if she pursued any for example.
 * The article sometimes seems biased because of the use of some "ambiguous" or "too affirmative" words or formulations such as: "considerable", "simply because he was a man", "her well-known film" "many found", "offers up", "though this sentiment did not resonate for everyone", "yet again".
 * The formulation of the sentence "The film yet again tells a story of violence where a group of plane crash survivors are on an island." can maybe be improved too.
 * The award categories such as "Best Director" should be attached with a Wikipedia link leading us to their respective pages as some people reading the article might not necessarily be familiar with all the specificities of each category. Links should also be added to the titles of the films such as Broken Mirrors for instance.
 * (Do you plan to keep the two last paragraphs of the initial Article Body/Career section ?)

General suggestions


 * I think that you have enough material about the films' reception to create a new section on its own that would deal with these issues (that would come after the filmography and be called "Reception" for instance). It would allow you to use the "Article body" to provide some biographical elements about Marleen Morris followed by information about the production and content of her different films, perhaps in two different subsections...

(Be that as it may, you did a great job improving the initial article so far (with new sources, new information and new wordings), and it was very stimulating for me to review your draft! :))

Response to feedback
I think the points made are, for the most part, all very good ones. I am going to go through and make what I'm saying more clear. I will also do my best to remove any hint of bias or opinion from the piece without sacrificing its meaning and message. I'll double check my wikilinks to add clarity. Some of her films don't have wikipedia pages so I can't link to them but I cite IMDb.

I will not be writing anything new after this edit. I hear the feedback that I didn't do much about her personal life but this was by design as I was editing in the "career" section of the article body. In the actual article there is an "early life" and a "personal life" section that could indeed use some expansion but it was difficult to find sources that painted a reliable picture of her life outside of her work.