User:GreenBruchert8/McLaren481/GreenBruchert8 Peer Review

General info
(provide username)
 * Peer Review on McLaren481 on Suso Cecchi d’Amico
 * Lead: : In the lead the user appears to have made the original article more specific. They also create fuller sentences so that there is a clearer flow to the content they are displaying .:: Content: : in the body paragraphs of the articles, the user ties up the loose ends that were originally not a part of the article. They make note of how originally d’Amico was a translator who became a screenwriter. The user found the names that were not included in the original article that I would say are detrimental to understanding d’Amico’s rise to stardom. :: Tone and Balance: I would say that the tone is not exactly neutral. While it makes sense to favor the director that one is writing about, the writing uses particular phrases that encourages a sense of favoritism of the director. The article, though well written and informative, feels more like a review on the director's life, rather than a site stating factual information. This could give off the effect of the information being over presented. However, I would not say that there are too many details at all. The information posted is helpful and provides a helpful analysis on the life works of d'Amico's.:: Sources and References: The references included on this article has a lot of interviews. While interviews are good, I can see how the writing comes across as less neutral because of the type of information gathered. Interviews can be reliable depending who is conducting them, however, they are not always reliable sources for one to depend on :: Organization: The article is well organized and clear. There is not too much going on, and I found it very easy to find information  :: Overall: I enjoyed reading this article. The writing was excellent and I never felt bored while reading it. My only critique would be the article’s lack of neutrality but other than that I was happy to read this page on d’Amico.  Whose work are  you reviewing?
 * Lead: : In the lead the user appears to have made the original article more specific. They also create fuller sentences so that there is a clearer flow to the content they are displaying .:: Content: : in the body paragraphs of the articles, the user ties up the loose ends that were originally not a part of the article. They make note of how originally d’Amico was a translator who became a screenwriter. The user found the names that were not included in the original article that I would say are detrimental to understanding d’Amico’s rise to stardom. :: Tone and Balance: I would say that the tone is not exactly neutral. While it makes sense to favor the director that one is writing about, the writing uses particular phrases that encourages a sense of favoritism of the director. The article, though well written and informative, feels more like a review on the director's life, rather than a site stating factual information. This could give off the effect of the information being over presented. However, I would not say that there are too many details at all. The information posted is helpful and provides a helpful analysis on the life works of d'Amico's.:: Sources and References: The references included on this article has a lot of interviews. While interviews are good, I can see how the writing comes across as less neutral because of the type of information gathered. Interviews can be reliable depending who is conducting them, however, they are not always reliable sources for one to depend on :: Organization: The article is well organized and clear. There is not too much going on, and I found it very easy to find information  :: Overall: I enjoyed reading this article. The writing was excellent and I never felt bored while reading it. My only critique would be the article’s lack of neutrality but other than that I was happy to read this page on d’Amico.  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.)