User:London1937/Rhapsody in Two Languages/LikeTheMovie Peer Review

Rhapsody in Two Languages article peer review

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The article focuses entirely on the film Rhapsody in Two Languages and the circumstances around its production. It might be better for the article's organization to break up sections of the text into separate categories (e.g. Plot, Significance, Reception).

Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

I like that you maintain neutrality and cite the article's claims often. That helps me understand the film and various elements of its production, release, etc. from an unbiased perspective.

Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The overall article is pretty short, but it still presents different viewpoints on equal ground and gives me insight into the nuances of the film's plot and significance. For instance, the second-to-last paragraph contrasts two standpoints; it states that Rhapsody in Two Languages is deliberately upbeat as a kind of escapism from the negative effects of the Great Depression. However, it also adds that the film conveys, in equal measure, Canada's collective sense of urgency during the financially unstable time period.

Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

Every link included in the references section works!

Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Considering the fact that information on these relatively obscure city symphony films was hard to find, I think you did a great job in finding reliable sources, both online and in print. Some of the references are specifically Canadian, which is useful in sourcing from the correct people and historical sources.

Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added?

I think you strike a balance between older, well-established sources and more recent sources. So, although a couple references are from the 90s, their role in the article seems appropriate.

Shanghai Document Film Review

LEAD

I like that the added descriptions portray a clearer picture of the types of jobs the population engaged in and then uses these to then explain the background of the massacre.

However, the sentence structure of some sentences are a bit hard to understand on the first read. I think this might be because descriptions are added after phrases that could already be considered a full sentence. Breaking up some of these longer sentences will make it flow better.

Cinematography commentary


 * I like this, but when it is mentioned that it is reminiscent of the visuals of another filmmaker it gets a little confusing in terms of how it is relevant since this artist mention does not give much context to anything. The idea is not really explained after the mention. Maybe you can link to a wikipedia page about that artist? Or provide another sentence after to explain how this detail speaks to the Shanghai document

Production Process


 * I like that you tried to touch on the production process that is largely unkown. However, since it is not really clear whether parts of these speculations are accurate or not, I think it would actually be better if the section were just deleted to be honest.

Overall I really liked that you included the headings for each section to separate out the portions of text. I found that this made it easier to understand the flow of the information and what information I was getting myself into. The sources you used seem credible and you used multiple sources to back your writing. I think possibly linking parts of your description to other wikipedia articles would elevate your addition to the page. This could be useful in parts where a further explanation may be needed like in the example I mentioned earlier.