User:Jieun7553/Robot Taekwon V/Broeygisvon1446 Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

Jieun7553


 * Link to draft you're reviewing

Draft


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

Article

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.)

What the article does well:
The revised article adds a lot more information that the original doesn't have. Details about animation method are really interesting. There is a lot of variety in the types of sources.

Changes I would suggest:
I didn't look into all the sources so maybe the footnotes do cover all the information, but there are some areas in the article that don't have any footnotes at all: the plot section and the first two paragraphs of the controversy section.

There needs to be consistency with the names. Sometimes you write them with the surname first and then other times the surname is at the end. I don't think it matters much which one you choose to go with, but you should pick one way.

Make sure that the footnotes are directly after the punctuation of each sentence.

Specific sentences:

"Kim Bo-mi, Kim Bo-young, Jeong Chi-hwa, Kim Young-chan, and Nam Do-hyeong in the restored version." Which characters do these people do the voices for? That information is missing here.

"Backlighting and stroboscopic effect were used in animating for the first time in South Korean feature animated film." Make sure to specify that backlighting and stroboscopic effect were used in animating this particular movie, because otherwise it sounds like this information is unrelated to the article topics.