User:Maddiebayley/Bechdel test/Jamanafort Peer Review

General info
@Maddiebayley, @Varino777, @DearNikki, @DianWakeham
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:It is a google doc.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bechdel_test&action=edit&section=6

Evaluate the drafted changes
Analyzing the first part that was written by my peers, I believe it is a solid addition. The entire Lead is well organized and split up in sections that are easy to understand and easy to pick apart.

They edited the section titled "pass fail proportions". The content added in this section is strictly statistics from reliable secondary sources, meaning it is neutral in tone. I feel some one the sentences are a little redundant (there is no need to "put it another way") in this section. The links to the sources work, and make sense for this topic as they are covering an idea in pop culture, and thus the sources are going to be modern news outlets. The biggest change i could see for this first section is find more sources that talk about similar statistics, just to corroborate these facts further.

The next section they edited was "Gender Portrayal in Popular Film". In this section from what I can tell they have only edited it by proposing to delete certain parts of the article because they are "wordy" or "irrelevant". After reading the article with the change and without the change I can safely say I agree with their critiques to omit certain portions of the already existing article. Talking about the proportions of women having sex in movies, is not particularly relevant to the Bechdel Test itself, and thus can be deleted without sacrificing the overall integrity of the section of this article.

Overall both sections are easy to read and overly complicated. Mostly clear and succinct information was added that is reliably corroborated. As stated before, the number of peer reviewed scholarly articles on the Bechdel Test in the modern day are limited. Thus it can be expected most of the sources came from news outlets and "random websites" as wikipedia so maturely puts it.