User:Samnap2/Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance/Leah mt Peer Review

General info
Samnap2
 * Whose work are you reviewing?


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Samnap2/Kanehsatake%3A_270_Years_of_Resistance?veaction=edit&preload=Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org_draft_template
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance

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.)

Lead
Lead was mostly kept the same as the original article, but a sentence was added to the end.

The sentence added is clear and concise, and mentions another program that the film has been added to.

It does not include a brief description of the articles major sections. Perhaps a small sentence giving an overview of the critical attention or production could be helpful within the lead.

There is no information present in the lead that is not mentioned in the body of the article, although i am not sure if the 18 awards it won needs to be mentioned again in the body of the text or can just be included in the lead.

Content
All the content is relevant and up to date.

The article adds relevant information that has not yet been documented and also reworks the information provided in the existing article- makes it more clear, precise and adds the proper references that is not provided in the existing article.

The article contributes to equity gaps/underrepresented people as it discusses an important indigenous film.

Tone and balance
The content is neutral and quotes used are usually direct quotes, which helps with staying neutral. When the content referenced is not neutral, it is presented as direct quotes with reference to the quotes author.

Im not sure if there was any negative criticism for this film, but there is nothing mentioned. Did any critics point out anything negative about it? Might be interesting to see, as it would provide 2 sides(if it even exists).

Sources and references
All references are properly cited. Most of the references are new, and are not the same ones used in the original article.

The sources span a broad range from 1994-2021, which is quite recent. There seems to be many different kinds of sources, from journals to books to NFB articles.

For the first quote, not sure if you need explicitly state the author of the quote or if it is enough to simply add the reference number at the end.

Organization
The content is very clear, the subtitles also make it clearer and divide it into well organized topics.

There are a couple of smaller grammatical errors

ex:"this historical events" instead of "these historical events" in the second to last line of the synopsis.

"admitted to feeling afraid for her life" could be changed to "admitted to fearing for her life" in the third paragraph under production.

"she continuously reminder herself" could be " she continuously reminded herself" in the second to last line under production.

Images and Media
There are no images. I don't know if it would be copyright to display a picture of the movie poster.