User:Curiouscat21/Ayo Akingbade/Matierallygirly Peer Review

General info
Curiouscat21
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curiouscat21/Ayo_Akingbade?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * This is a new article

Evaluate the drafted changes
General notes on style

This article does a great job highlighting her career with important details. Yet, it also has a very academic writing style with a strong perspective (for example, the word "Nonetheless" in the second paragraph of the career section is a word which evaluates different pieces of information in a text by their value, and you use "often" a lot to provide an analysis of many different sources.) Try to be careful of this and reference other Wikipedia articles! Also, I'll include some minor grammatical corrections as I go along to help identify some issues, but I would give this another pass for grammar and clarity. Still, great job!

Lead

The lead starts with a strong introductory line that properly identifies the filmmaker and her relevance. The second paragraph uses academic writing style of attribution, and could be shortened for brevity. Summarizing her artistic interest into a line or two would also help create greater balance with the more technical details that are generally the focus of Wikipedia leads.

Content

The content creates a great chronological perspective of her life and career, flowing from the "biography" section to "career," "filmography" and then "awards and nominations."

The first sentence of her biography lacks citation (you can recite the same source). This section does, however, add relevant details into her life. For grammar, you wrote "earnt" instead of "earned."

Similarly, the first sentence of the career section also lacks a citation. This is really important, especially because we are highlighting the artists personal perspective, thus, requiring proper attribution.

The division between her old projects and upcoming projects is not necessary, but nice to see! It does guide the reader through the section.

Again, in the filmography, please be cautious of evaluating information or adding your perspective! Here, you call her works "powerful," which may be good to add, but would require a review to use as a mouthpiece. Additionally, when you say her works "often include both newly shot film and archival footage," you are identifying a trend and, in doing so, include your own perspective. Given that few of her works have their own Wikipedia pages, it's appropriate to describe them here, and you do an excellent job of providing an overview rather than a full summary.

New Article

This article is new, but once existed! It was actually deleted in 2022 for not having enough reliable, secondary sources, so it's especially important to be cautious of this! Many of the cited courses are either interviews or biographies provided by affiliated organizations (the British Film Council and Royal Academy of Arts, for instance, are affiliated with her and her works, thus not quite independent enough to establish notability). The book and two reviews work great for this, but, because this was an issue in the past, I would suggest trying to add an extra source for notability.

Great job overall!