User:CherylnVerlin/Vivian Qu/SLOSHY3900 Peer Review

The introduction is strong, it sets up the director's works and accomplishments. Your minor addition to it works well and doesnt distract. In the "Early Life and Education" section, I noticed there was no birthdate for the director. Is her birthday not known?

The line, "the dark and degraded deals and conspiracy" is a little wordy, and maybe could just be shortened to "suspicious activity" or something along these lines. Small grammar note too, it would be "as an "illegal" teenage worker." Also, "as a hotel receptionist". That whole sentence is also very long and could potentially be split into two for conciseness.

Also, note it should be "depressing incident." This line too, which is has a citation linking to a review, may be worth prefacing as being stated by a critic. In other words, maybe start this line by saying, "Fionnuala Halligan described..." or "critics have described the sensitivity Qu brings..."

Note the grammatical error, "As the film centers around..."

I also am not sure if I understand what you mean by the line, "Qu entitles the film to spread her voice for the objectifying women within the Chinese society". The sentences reads confusingly.

Note the grammar error, it should be "gender equality", not "gender equity".

This line also reads confusingly, "While Qu dedicates to amplify harm and suppression to the marginalized women". Dedicates what?

Note the grammar, "female filmmakers' opportunities". Get rid of the "to" in, "capital press filmmakers to use young casts for".

Note the grammar on, "going back to being a producer."

You mention that she goes back to being a director. Is there a new film or project she is working on? Recent information like that would be helpful.

Your sources are strong and reliable. Also, the tone throughout the article is neutral and you successfully avoid being biased.

The only prevalent issue with your article is the grammar, once that is cleaned up you'll have a much more concise and easy to read article.

General info
(provide username)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:
 * 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.)