User:Yourstrulyy/Nnegest Likké/Gossipgirl123456 Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Reviewing Yourstrulyy
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: Nnegest Likké

Lead
Lead evaluation:

The Lead is very short and could probably be updated to include a more thorough (but still concise) debrief of the filmmaker. There are some grammatical errors (punctutation), so make sure you re-read before posting your final draft! Also, the Lead could include a brief description of the article's major sections. I would also recommend that you reference their nationality in the Lead section (ie. "...is an American filmmaker, director and screenwriter...")

Content evaluation:
I believe that the content that you have included is relevant and up to date. It seems that you are probably not finished your page, as there are many content gaps/unfinished thoughts. I think that you're off to a good start and could probably provide more content, based on the amount of resources you have cited. If you were finished and this is your final draft, I think you should go through and finish off those thoughts (ex. in Early Life & Education especially). I would also recommend including what the filmmaker is up to now, since the most recent piece I could find was from 2016 (maybe under the career section and referenced in the Lead section?). If you are looking for ways to include more content, I would suggest that you make subheadings for the filmmaker's most well-known films and write more detailed information about where they drew inspiration and how their film has had impact.

Tone and balance evaluation:
I believe that this article is very neutral. It lays out the filmmaker's career and filmography without being biased.

Sources and References
Guiding questions:


 * Is all new content backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?
 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?
 * Are the sources current?
 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Sources and references evaluation

 * There are no citations in the Lead section or the description box
 * She is half African-American and half Ethiopian and was raised by her two Civil-Activist Parents.She grew up in San Francisco also known as the Bay Area, -> needs citation
 * Inspired by her love of giving advice, this show aired in Los Angeles for 3 years. It was later sold to the Lifetime Network. -> needs citation
 * Filmography section could use a citation
 * The 'IndieGogo' page that you used may not be reliable based on Wikipedia standards, because it is affiliated directly with the film and is therefore not a secondary source.
 * You have referenced a few film festivals, however these are not secondary sources as they are a sponsor for the film.
 * Many of your citations repeat themselves - for instance, 3, 4,9 & 11 are all the same source. They should instead all be sourced using the same footnote, instead of each having their own even though it's the same reference. Wikipedia does this automatically, it's very easy! All you have to do is chose the third option to use an existing reference when you're citing, instead of creating a new citation for the same source each time.

All in all, I think you should definitely reconfigure your references before handing in your final draft in order to get top marks.

Organization evaluation
The content has lots of grammatical errors, mainly punctuation, so I'm assuming you aren't finished yet. I would recommend that you read over each of your sections and double check the grammar and organization of your paragraphs prior to finishing your draft. In addition, each of the section titles should have capital letters where appropriate, ie. Awards, nominations, honours should be Awards, Nominations, Honours. I think that the break down of the sections are great.

For New Articles Only
New Article Evaluation


 * Does the article meet Wikipedia's Notability requirements - i.e. Is the article supported by 2-3 reliable secondary sources independent of the subject? YES
 * How exhaustive is the list of sources? Does it accurately represent all available literature on the subject?
 * I believe that the list is probably appropriate for the amount of sources that are available on the subject - generally speaking, for lesser-known independent filmmakers, it is hard to find sources.
 * 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? YES
 * Does the article link to other articles so it is more discoverable? YES

Overall impressions
Guiding questions:


 * Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?
 * What are the strengths of the content added?
 * How can the content added be improved?

Overall evaluation
Overall, I think that this article is in need of major improvements. While it is a great starting place for a well-rounded wiki article, I think that thoughts are left unfinished (content gaps), there are many grammatical errors, and the citations are improper (footnotes should lead back to the same citation for the same source, not multiple for the same source). However, I think that you have enough resources to spruce up your article, and your writing on the filmmaker is very interesting! Good luck :)