User:McLaren481/Suso Cecchi d'Amico/Peanutdoll Peer Review

General info
McLaren481/Suso Cecchi d'Amico
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:In the leader part, the editor added a very detailed introduction to the screenwriter, in this introduction, the screenwriter's film works, awards won, date of birth, etc., which is very clear and complete. However, more details about the film, including co-directors, can be divided into a separate section. Rather than as the content of the lead section, in this case, the content will be more targeted, but also easy for readers to understand and read. In the content part, the information supplemented by the editor is very substantial and rigorous, almost every sentence has its own source and source, but the sentences used can be more neutral and objective, because the editor uses some interview manuscripts as reference sources, so it is more necessary to pay attention to distinguish which content is truly objective and which is said by the writer himself. There should be a distinction to make the additions more accurate, but it's good that the editor has detailed sources for all the additions. In the content, I think there is a lack of background introduction to the screenwriter's screenwriting works and some stories behind her creation, and it would be better to add more content in this aspect.  The writing is smooth and there is no problem with the grammar.  Overall, this is a very good Wikipedia entry, thanks to the editor for his work.
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):

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.)