User:SilverScreen'sSilverLining/Human Rights Film Festival/Mxnicpixie Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SilverScreen'sSilverLining


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:SilverScreen'sSilverLining/Human Rights Film Festival
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Lead section accurately reflects all information presented in article, great work! When the sections are adjusted for flow and clarity (see below), this will be a strong example of a lead section for a new Wikipedia article.
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Introduction is strong, accurate, and concise. The transition into the second sentence is awkward, as though there is something missing in between. Writing is clear and strong, so if this section is added to before publishing, I have confidence it will be accurate and reflective of information added.
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * The lead discusses information presented in article sections in a logical order. A brief description of sections may be what this lead section needs to improve the user's experience as they engage with the content.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * No information is presented outside of the article throughout the lead. This may, however, be an opportunity to separate the lead and the history into separate sections in order to improve clarity.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Concise! Oddly, the fact that this article has a concise lead contributes to a feeling that it is overcrowded with information while actually presenting it in a very straightforward manner. An adjustment to the prose may help these details fit better into the flow of the section.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes - relevant, interesting information is included. All information is on-topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * Information provided appears to reflect current understanding of the topic chosen.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * Though there is no content that does not belong, it seems as though there is information missing from the History section. While this section is reflective of the formation of the topic, the weight given on the focus of HRWIFF detracts from the historical elements. More information and discussion from sources already listed may help to provide additional context in this area.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * Yes - human right film festivals are an area of film studies which is not yet accurately presented on Wikipedia. This information is valuable in filling an existing knowledge gap within the discipline.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * The overall tone of the article is neutral, though there are a few sentences that need rewording to make sourced material not sound like author's opinion. For example, in speaking on FICDH in Argentina in the Notable Festivals section, the words "the most important" appear to reflect significance within the article rather than the source chosen, which I do not believe was intentional. Wording around this point should be adjusted for clarity and neutrality.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Again- bias is not present, but awkward wording appears to reflect opinion rather than sources in portions of the Notable festivals section. Acknowledgement of the potential Western bias due to information provided is addressed and reflective of neutrality policies.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Viewpoints appear to be very balanced regarding current sources available. There is a reliance on Sonia Tascon due to what appears to be foundational information to the field, so this is not an issue to immediately address. Further contributions to this article will have an excellent foundation to build on with the notable journal articles used to inform the information presented.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * Wording on FICDH feels persuasive - needs fixing. Other small areas which can be adjusted for neutrality are in the first two sentences of the criticisms section, and the final two sentences on FFF in the Notable festivals section.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes - very well-sourced. The foundation of peer-reviewed journals will provide the basis for expansion of this topic.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * The content is very careful to accurately reflect sources to the detriment of the flow and style of the article. More exposition to provide clarity will help communicate this topic to Wikipedia's audience.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * The sources are thorough and appear to show the best current information on the topic to the best of my knowledge. Again, there are other sources which could be chosen to improve the breadth of knowledge on the topic, but in terms of notability, this is an excellent reflection on academic understanding of human rights film festivals.
 * Are the sources current?
 * All sources are current. This is a newer topic in terms of academia from what I can see in my search for literature, therefore, there is a lack of sources prior to the last decade. This will reflect a Western academic bias until the information is fully fleshed out. The acknowledgement of this perspective is notable and addressed this issue in the meantime until this page can be added to.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * A good mix of academic perspectives are provided in the source list. Marginalized festivals are prioritized in the Notable festivals section to provide a better mix of perspectives. Marginality is something which will need further attention once notability is established, which I believe this article accomplishes.
 * Are there better sources available, such as peer-reviewed articles in place of news coverage or random websites? (You may need to do some digging to answer this.)
 * Currently, no. There are additional sources which would provide relevant, accurate information, but establishing notability of the topic is a significant starting point. Author does an excellent job compiling current Western sources with an attention to neutrality.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?
 * THEY WORK!

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The flow of the article is negatively impacted by the reliance on providing accurate information of the sources - my suggestion would be for the author to read their section again, write a paragraph on a sheet of paper with notes on everything they believe are missing, then to return to the sections and see if there are any areas where information could be presented with more clarity.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Yes - I caught a few on my first read, spell check and grammar needed. Title capitalization needs to reflect Wiki standards. There are commas missing from the history section impacting the flow of information. Issues with this arise in the Notable festivals section as well, spelling errors present. ex. "elven/eleven"
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * The sections are relevant and well-organized. I would expand current sections as suggested by author before recommending additional sections be added.

Images and Media
Guiding questions: If your peer added images or media


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?
 * The image chosen by the author enhances understanding, exhibiting a clear image of a notable festival
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * The captions is accurate to the photo, though potentially confusing to someone unfamiliar with the topic. Perhaps an additional explanation could be added? I am unsure of how to approach this in a way which would improve it, but as a note to the author for clarity, might be an area of improvement to note.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Image appears correctly sourced and described.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * The design of the sidebar is visually appealing and contributes greatly to the engagement this article provides. Additional pictures would be an excellent consideration as this article expands.

For New Articles Only
If the draft you're reviewing is for a new article, consider the following in addition to the above.


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject?
 * This article goes a long way towards establishing notability for this topic on Wikipedia proper. Author clearly took careful attention to detail in their choice of sources to improve this.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * List of sources is currently basic, providing mostly general information on the topic. At this point, I believe this is as exhaustive as is possible while establishing this topic's notability. More work will be needed in regards to the exhaustiveness of information, though this is something which would benefit from collaboration with other wiki users. As of now, this foundation is strong.
 * Does the article follow the patterns of other similar articles - i.e. contain any necessary infoboxes, section headings, and any other features contained within similar articles?
 * Pattern is strong with a high emphasis on visual appeal. Author has an eye for aesthetics, accurately portraying relevant, factual information.
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * Links are well done and will improve navigation within the topic on Wikipedia proper. At this point, there are no suggestions I would make for additional links to the article as is.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * Great compilation on current information on human rights film festivals! Quality of information and work is excellent with attention directed towards meeting Wikipedia's standards for information. The article is foundational towards future completeness of the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * Strengths are the recognition of the Notable festivals and the elaboration on why they are relevant. The logical progression of information is strong and adds to the aesthetic appeal of the article to improve user engagement. Article provides balanced coverage reflecting current academic understanding of the topic, establishing the importance and notability of the knowledge provided.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Grammar needs adjusting to increase clarity and flow. The way factual information is presented negatively impacts neutrality due to tonal issues rather than bias in the sources. Sentence structure should be adjusted through a referral to the author's own notes on the topic.