User:Rubytuesday2023/Nancy Meckler/CherylnVerlin Peer Review

General info
Rubytuesday2023
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing:User:Rubytuesday2023/Nancy Meckler
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists):Nancy Meckler

Lead
You have made a few adjustment to the lead section of the article. Generally you corrected some basic information and career achievement of Nancy Meckler that describes her career in a more precise way. You focuses mainly on Nancy Meckler's career direction and her personal approach of theatre and film production. There could be some more informations about Nancy Meckler's achievement or completion in film industry if there is anything else to add into the lead.

Content
The content you added is highly relevant to the article of Nancy Meckler as a female filmmaker. It is relatively up-to-date, including the informations and life experience of the filmmaker as well as her shifting of weight within the film industry. You expands the content on Nancy Meckler's early life and career, which is the main body that the article need to be improved on as the original article did not elaborate such informations. The revision and add-on of Nancy Meckler as a female director makes the article more accurate in introducing Nancy Meckler. Your paragraph is well-organized and concise except that some of contents is not necessary a part of her career and may be better to include them within a different sub-heading.

Tone and Balance
Your tone in the content you added is relatively neutral and there is no clear biases in your words and phrases. Nevertheless, there is actually less representation of her films or film production in your draft, where instead you mainly focuses on Nancy Meckler's experience as a filmmaker. It would be better if you use a more neutral and specific tone in the filmography section when you describes other film professionals comments on her works.

Sources and References
All the new content you added is backed up by reliable secondary source, and you managed to paraphrase the contents and your words reflect what the original source intends to express. The sources are mostly thorough and current with only a few outdated due to the publish time. Since Nancy Meckler actively participated in filmmaking in the 1990s, articles written about her were presented on media at that time and decades after. Therefore it is understandable that some sources are not present articles. The links to the sources are stable and works well.

Organization
The content you added is concise and easy-to-read, with no obvious grammatical or vocabulary errors. Some of the words you chose can be phrased in a more accurate way especially the filmography section. The paragraphs are broken down into appropriate organization and they are generally in a good structure.

Overall impressions
Overall, this is a really good draft for to improve the wikipedia page of Nancy Meckler. The content added improves the quality of the article as a whole and expands more information about the female director's life and experience. The languages are really clear and the structure is easy for viewers to read and interpret. It can be written better if you could have include more academic resources from different perspectives that commenting on her work as an artistic director. Overall, it is a really good improvement on Nancy Meckler's career as a female filmmaker.