User:Domino10101/Karen Cho/Rubytuesday2023 Peer Review

General info
Domino10101
 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:Domino10101/Karen Cho
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Karen Cho

Evaluate the drafted changes
Overall notes: I really enjoyed reading your article! I thought your writing was easy to digest but also informative, and did a good job of providing enough detail to be interesting but not so much that it confusing or rambling.

Lead: Clear, concise, and gives a good overview of what is notable about Cho. Well cited, and not overly detailed. A clarity note - perhaps it would be more accurate/grammatically correct to say "from Montreal" or "living in Montreal" rather than "in Montreal". Additionally, since you spend a paragraph talking about her political affiliations, perhaps a phrase or sentence about those in the lead would be helpful?

Content: Seems relevant and very up to date, with content from her film released in 2023 included! I was not left with any outstanding questions, and all the paragraphs you included seem relevant and are interesting to read. This article definitely deals with an equity gap as Cho is both a person of colour and a woman; you have addressed these aspects of her identity and how it directly ties to her filmmaking well.

Organization: The writing/narrative flows well, and. It might be good to link to articles about Canada's Chinese Head Tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act where they are mentioned in your article to give readers some context. Additionally, I would do a final grammar edit to make sure all your punctuation is correct; I noticed a paragraph that does not have a period at the end.

Tone/Balance: You do an excellent job of presenting her political beliefs in an object and neutral way and demonstrating how they are relevant to her as a filmmaker. The writing is not persuasive, and I didn't feel that there were perspectives left unaddressed.

References: Citations are very frequent and attribution is clear. Your list of sources looks exhaustive and generally up to date, as well as from reliable/notable websites. One of your sources lists the year as "202" which I'm sure is a typo - but make sure to fix that :)

Overall, a very engaging and informative article! It was fun to read about Karen.