User:MichelleCHsfsu/Seoul Station (film)/Hmleonard Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

MichelleCHsfsu


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:MichelleCHsfsu/Seoul Station (film)


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

Evaluate the drafted changes
Lead: The lead is concise and of a good length. You added more information to the synopsis which reflects all the details you added to the "Plot" section." The lead does include some information which isn't mentioned later in the article, like how it is a prequel and that it was shown at the 2016 Edinburgh International Film Festival.

Content: The content added is relevant to the topic. You expanded the plot summary and I like how detailed it is now. I think more can be added to the other sections. Perhaps instead of a "Home Media" section, you can change it to "Release" where you can talk about how it was shown at the film festival, as well as box office numbers/theatrical release information in addition to the home media releases. I also recommend adding a section where you write about how Seoul Station is a prequel, if you can find information or interviews talking about the development of the film. If there's enough content you can find, you may even be able to add a section on themes of the film.

Tone and Balance: Most of the content added is neutral. Some of the words describing the boyfriend ("useless" etc.) I would say is biased. If he is called that in the film you can put it in quotation marks. A lot of viewpoints are also just from movie reviewers. Try to add in some peer-reviewed academic articles if you can.

Sources and References: The sources appear to be from reputable news sites and the sources you added do reflect the content. I would recommend trying to add at least one academic source though-- check SFSU library. A lot of the sources are from 2016 and 2017 which isn't old (since that's when the movie came out) but when I searched the film there are some more recent sources like and

Organization: The article is easy to read but there are some minor errors like how in the plot summary there is a word missing in the first sentence ("covering a bloody on his neck"). Just make sure to carefully proofread. Looks great overall though and I like how the article is organized.

Overall Impressions: This is a great start! I really like the expanded plot summary. I just recommend adding some more to the article, like I said above in "content." Check out the sources I found and linked too. Great job!