User:Daisyfriedman8/The Sessions (film)/Ropalm Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Daisyfriedman8

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Daisyfriedman8/The_Sessions_(film)&action=edit


 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * The Sessions (film)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Hello! I hope that I am doing this correctly!

Content: The content in your draft is relevant to the overall main article, and it also focuses on a marginalized group of individuals. The section that is (will be) added to the main article introduces a disability studies lens that may not have been the focus before. I think that it adds a lot more depth to the main article because it is discussing one of the main topics of the film; sexuality. And including disability, which is another main topic of the film. The intersection between these two concepts is important to note and draw attention to.

Tone and Balance: I think that the tone and overall balance of this section is a work in progress. I think there needs to be a bit more neutral. In the beginning of the section, it seems like there are a couple of words that suggest 'most, all, often, and many', and I recall the the training stating that we should stay away from wording that suggests an idea to the reader. Instead, maybe focus on what is being stated in the articles/ references you are using. Or maybe find synonyms so that certain words are not being used.

Sources and References: I think that the references used are great, I checked some links and they work. I am not sure if the medical model article and the Rosemarie Garland-Thompson article being listed in the reference list is intentional or not. But maybe double check those two sources in case it was a mistake since they are Wikipedia sources. Most sources are current or at least within the past ten years, so I think that they are still reliable.

Organization: I think spelling wise, all the words were written correctly. I did notice that there is a repetition of the word 'that that' a couple of times, I would suggest going over it once again to check for that. I also suggest breaking up this paragraph into smaller sections, so that it is a bit easier to read and follow along. I would suggest maybe including three smaller paragraphs instead of a large one.

Overall impressions: I think that the written section is really good and solid. It provides information about the individual who the film was based on, which can be its own section. The author introduces a disability studies term, defines it and is able to use a source to back up the information being presented. Further along in the article, O'Brien is mentioned quite a bit, which is great. I think the main article does not focus or mention them much so keeping the narrative as close to the writer is a good way to represent disabled individuals. One of my main questions is where would the section that you added in your Sandbox go? Would it be a new section in the main article or an addition to an existing one. And again, maybe adding a section about O'Brien specifically so that the reader is aware of who they are, and it can be more clear.