User:Maddiebayley/Bechdel test/Meimulee Peer Review

General info
The Bechdel Test (idk who this is tho... desole)
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * The Bechdel Test https://blogs.fu-berlin.de/abv-gender-diversity/2021/12/13/the-bechdel-test-and-gender-equality-in-the-film-industry/ Keywords:
 * The Bechdel Test
 * Scholarly  Database: Google Chrome   This source discusses the Bechdel Test and the relevance it has today. It gives different examples of movies passing/failing the Bechdel test and shows the impact it has had in the media. There are also many sources cited where you can (I think its called:) citation chase.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

Evaluate the drafted changes
Wikipedia Project

Peer Review

Week 5

Due date: Monday, October 2nd

*submit via sandbox AND blackboard

This week’s module focuses on peer review of your classmate's articles. I have assigned you articles to review. You should answer the following four bolded questions in your response to your classmate. The additional questions below are prompts for speaking to specific issues as you write up your answers. Remember to sign your critique with four tildes! ~

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way?

First, the article does a good job of providing examples of the Bechdel test in action, like in 2018 during the Oscars. I was impressed with the amount of statistics and hard evidence that was reviewed in the article. A good way that it was presented was by saying “nearly half, or 49%, of the Oscar Best Picture…” allowed everything to be presented in a clear way.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

I would first start by ensuring that every time the article says the “Bechdel test” capitalize the ‘B’, just so it is consistent. Same thing with the spelling of ‘films’. Besides the grammar/spelling, I would talk about the impact of these certain films not passing the Bechdel test, or maybe explaining why those certain films won. Just make sure it doesn’t sound biased. These changes would be an improvement because they would better explain to the reader the impact of the Bechdel test on society and/or the films (if that made sense…)

What’s the most important thing the author could do to improve this article?

The most important thing the author could do to improve this article is to provide another example of a pass/fail of the Bechdel test.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

I liked how this article was able to take a statement and rephrase it in a way that anyone could understand. I think I will probably apply this to my NWHN article to provide more support.

A lead section that is easy to understand:

Looking at the lead by itself, I do feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic. After reading the rest of the article, the lead does reflect the most important information, such as the definition of the Bechdel test and the effect of it too. Because the lead is primarily about the history of the Bechdel test and its origin, the lead weighs more into the birth of the Bechdel test rather than it’s effect, but as you keep reading the flow is nice.

A clear structure:

The sections are well organized and in a sensible order, though the ‘Financial aspects’, in my opinion, should be a subheading underneath ‘Use in film and television industry’. This would just make more sense/ clarity rather than having both as a subheading.

Balanced coverage:

Nothing in this article is necessarily ‘off-topic, and the balance between the ‘criticism’ topic and ‘Application’ are both similar. This article also does a good job of reflecting all perspectives by writing about the limitations and criticisms of the Bechdel test. Lastly, the article does not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view.

Neutral content:

I could not guess the perspective of the author by reading the article and does a good job of excluding words/phrases that don't feel neutral. The neutrality of this article is balanced.

Reliable sources:

Most statements in the article are connected to a reliable source (sometimes more than one!) such as journal articles.