User:Huskyrt/New Documentary Movement/Lainahare Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?
 * I am reviewing Huskyrt's article titled "New Documentary Movement".
 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * This is the draft at the point that I am reviewing in the sandbox.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * -I think you did a great job with your article there is a lot of valuable information in the content. You formatted the chart very well and made the information really clear. I would suggest in your lead section to add a little bit more information about what is upcoming in the article. This would be very useful for readers as it lays out a clear logical path to look for.
 * -The content of your article is very clear and informative. I believe it would help a lot to divide up the history section because you talk about two concepts. Although both historical concepts I think separating them would allow you to go more in depth on both the genre and the technological evolution.
 * Your content and tone seems very neutral and allows the readers to draw their own conclusions. However, I do think some of the wordage used is attempting to sway the reader to support the new movement.
 * -You're off to a good start with sources. However, it does seem that you input some original analysis which is not supposed to be included in Wikipedia articles. If this is not original analysis be sure to cite which of your sources this information is coming from.
 * -The organization of this article is clear and introduces you to this genre well. I think to improve slightly in this area I would consider the order of information and what additional information could be added to bulk up the information needed to better understand this genre and what makes it special.
 * -I think this is a very interesting topic for an article and would definitely be considered notable by wikipedia's standards. I think that you should try to find at least 2 more sources to bulk up the information. If there are no other sources that you think would work then I would consider trying to search slightly different keywords to throw a larger net.
 * -You did a good job including links to exterior articles so that your article is easier to find. I think this will make your article more successful in receiving attention. Hopefully other's will share this interest and add more information as well.

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.)