User:SilverScreen'sSilverLining/List of human rights film festivals/Mxnicpixie Peer Review

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing?

SilverScreen'sSilverLining


 * Link to draft you're reviewing
 * User:SilverScreen'sSilverLining/List of human rights film festivals
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)
 * Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

Evaluate the drafted changes
Peer review

Complete your peer review exercise below, providing as much constructive criticism as possible. The more detailed suggestions you provide, the more useful it will be to your classmate. Make sure you consider each of the following aspects:

Lead
Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * The list provides a summary of the article's content
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Yes! The lead sentence is very strong with clear and accurate description
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * No, and actually, a description and explanation of the list would make this page more straightforward.
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Yes - I think this section would make more sense if broken into two parts, one that gives a description of the page (lead) and a separate section for the relevant, factual information listed.
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?
 * Overly-detailed in the sense that some information would be better off in it's own section, though the writing is concise. Sentence structure could be improved, and I think rearranging the information will address this issue and improve the flow.

Content
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added relevant to the topic?
 * Yes, article remains on-topic.
 * Is the content added up-to-date?
 * To the best of my knowledge, information is up-to-date and accurate.
 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?
 * The list is expansive and encompasses an impressive breadth of information related to international participation in human rights film festivals. There is nothing about the list itself which should be adjusted in my opinion.
 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?
 * This list fills a gap in Wikipedia's current organization of human rights film festivals. The topic itself compiles information on film media's worldwide contribution regarding human rights issues, though it does not directly link to equity. The indirect link of providing access to information on human rights film is impactful and necessary.

Tone and Balance
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added neutral?
 * Neutral! No statements unsourced, nothing non-factual stated.
 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Not on this list. There is no particular weight given to any festival versus another, providing balance.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Not that I can see, there appears to be a fair amount of diversity in the information showcased.
 * Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?
 * No persuasion present.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Yes - all information provided comes from relevant secondary source material. Sourcing is thorough and thoughtful.
 * Does the content accurately reflect what the cited sources say? (You'll need to refer to the sources to check this.)
 * Yes, all information provided reflects source material to the best of my knowledge, though my familiarity with the topic is low. Someone with experience in film could provide more in-depth commentary, but from a user standpoint, the information appears straighforward and accurate.
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Sources seem chosen on the basis of accurately conveying information - nice work! In my search for these terms on Google I was unable to have as much success as I had using this list.
 * Are the sources current?
 * Current and up-to-date.
 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?
 * There is a lack of diversity in sourcing when it comes to the marginalized perspectives reflected. Though these perspectives are included, the heavy weight on one source of information may provide limited perspective on less-recognized festivals. However, sourcing provided appears to be accurate and reflective of best current information available, so this may simply be a potential gap in the literature.
 * 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.)
 * Didn't see this question - no! I wasn't able to find any, at least. Someone with more experience in film studies may provide more valuable commentary.
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Organization
Guiding questions:


 * Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?
 * The list itself is fantastic. As stated before, the organization of the lead section is slightly awkward and may be better off separated into two brief sections. The writing is straightforward, minor grammar issues.
 * Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?
 * Grammar is slightly awkward in some of the sentences in the lead section due to their length and placement within the section. No spelling errors found.
 * Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?
 * Yes! - again, potential note for creating a distinction between the lead and the description may increase the clarity of information provided.

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 for the sidebar is quite good, representative of the article. The picture itself is eye-catching, as well are the flags used in the list to indicate country.
 * Are images well-captioned?
 * N/A - though adding pictures and captions throughout may be an option, I am unsure if that would add or detract from the list overall.
 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?
 * Yes.
 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?
 * Images are visually appealing and eye-catching, though there is the potential to incorporate more of these elements, perhaps, as the 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?
 * Absolutely - this article successfully compiles the already-existing information on the topic from a variety of notable sources.
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * The list at this point seems as exhaustive and representative of the topic as it can be in terms of current knowledge. I am extremely impressed by the effort and attention to detail exhibited by the author, clearly committed to quality and accuracy. This article shows room for improvement as coverage on the topic expands, particularly in terms of marginal festivals whose sources do not provide extensive information on the topic at this point.
 * 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?
 * The article seems structured similarly to other articles which involve lists of films. With the infobox leading directly to film studies, I do wonder
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable?
 * I am very impressed by the links overall, though I find at points links being prioritized negatively impacted sentence structure. Additionally, there are points within the notes of the list section where I think links could be added for further accessibility. Links provided are accurate, relevant, and informative.

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * As is, this article would be an excellent addition to Wikipedia. Work presented is high quality with attention to detail, providing valuable encyclopedic information pertaining to human rights film festivals in current day. This improves the quality of information and increases findability of related information across the website in relation to the topic.
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * The presentation and organization of the list are professional-level, with obvious reflection on Wikipedia's standards. Having an organized list of human rights film festivals from across the world will potentially increase visibility and information about this valuable expression of international media pertaining to social issues, and setting this standard initially will encourage quality contributions to the list. Attention was given to sourcing the most relevant and accurate information and Wikilinks pertaining to the topic, reflecting current knowledge from a neutral standpoint while still acknowledging festivals that exist on the margins.
 * How can the content added be improved?
 * Creating a separation between the description of the list and the relevant information for the page will improve the quality and clarity. Perhaps this is a potential area for a future Wikipedia article related directly to the topic of human rights film festivals. The display of the film studies sidebar is potentially confusing and may not reflect the most relevant information. Take note of sentence structure on the update to avoid awkward grammar/flow.