User talk:Alanoudalattiya/sandbox

Abdulaziz Peer Review
•	A lead section that is easy to understand

The lead section is not apparent as there is no introduction to introduce “Cinema of Europe”. An opening lead section would be clarifying the aims and objectives of the article lead the reader to the importance of the information.

•	A clear structure

Overall, there is a very clear structure but this would be better supportive by a lead section to introduce the flow of the paragraphs and explain the organization. But, the article seems very well polished in terms of sub categories and focus which makes it easy to follow for me. I really like the way it was presented.

•	Balanced coverage

The article is very well balanced. Looking at the opening sentence they have stated and referenced key points clearly. They have included the many different cinemas in Europe and given in depth information for each. I feel like this is really well done and has informed the reader in a professional manner. However, the section for soviet cinema does not match the analysis of the other two cinemas because it does not focus Pre and Post war cinema. I feel if this is added it would cause a better presentation of the article.

•	Neutral content

The article is clear, informative and neutral. Each sentence and fact is referenced backed up together with an easily comprehensible sentence structure.

•	Reliable sources

All the sources are relevant and are based on professional journal article, reliable books and no dubious sources. The article selections look very neat and the sources are correctly referenced in terms of APA format.

•	Overall

A very well presented and structured article which has been written in a professional manner. However, a lead paragraph would great enhance the focus of the article and give the reader an indication of the flow. Also, consistency in sub categories for each of three types of cinema would improve the structure and clarity. Overall, the article is outstanding and in depth and uses really good grammar and sentence structure. The way it was written made me feel more interested in the topic and was extremely informative.

Abdulazizjalthani (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Maha's Peer Review –
Lead: The lead section was not evident in your draft. Even though the first paragraph was clear and concise, a lead would help make the introduction flow better. Maybe include a brief explanation of Cinema of Europe and Italian Neorealism before giving more information.

Structure: I like how you included subtopics in your article which is more attractive to the eye with every Wikipedia article. I like that you divided it under different subtopics because the readers would not be bombarded with too many words. The only downside is the fact that there was no "lead" to introduce the rise of movement, styles of conventions and pre and post war etc. It would be great if you gave the reader a glimpse of the article in the introduction section. Although, to make it more consice maybe seperate pre war and post war into seperate paragraphs.

Balanced coverage: I feel like regardless of not writing a lead, the overall coverage of Cinema and Europe is great. There is a sufficient amount of coverage on this topic and you and your group did a great job covering this topic.

Objectivity: Overall, this article is greatly objective. You did not include bias or subjective sentences throughout the whole article which is great since it follows Wikipedia's guidelines. I liked that you maintained a neutral point of view when writing this article. The article is clear, concise and backed up with sources after most sentences.

Sources: I believe you used a great amount of sources to back up your article. You followed the correct APA format and the majority of sources you used are reliable since you used reliable books and journal articles.

Overall: Your article looks great and looks like a typical Wikipedia article (very professional). First thing to take note of is to write a lead at the beginning to introduce cinema of Europe and Italian Neorilism to define it for student readers who need information on this topic. Secondly, seperate one of the subtopics "Pre and Post War", divide it into Pre war and Post War to make it more concise and to the point. Overall, the article is greatly infromative, neutral, easy to follow and there was a great use of words.

Balkees's peer review
Cinema of Europe

Lead:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? There was no introduction of the Cinema of Europe. You can include more information about your topic and then start with the information.

Structure:

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? Each sections is organized very well. The subtopics that you included are good for the reader. The only thing that I think you should change is the pre and post war and keep them separate.

Balancing Act:

Is the section's length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? Yes, the section's are equal to the importance of the article's sections. There wasn't anything off-topic.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? The article does reflect all the perspectives that is represented in the published literature. I like that you included different cinemas around Europe and gave more information about each one. Neutral Content:

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? There wasn't any bias sentences in the article.

Are there any words or phrases that don't feel neutral? For example, "the best idea," "most people," or negative associations, such as "While it's obvious that x, some insist that y." No, there was not any words or phrases that don't feel neutral.

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, there wasn't any

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. The article was neutral, the information that were included are clear to the reader. The article did not focus too much on negative and positive information.

Reliable Sources:

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? Yes, they are connected to a reliable sources and good choice of journal articles.

Are there a lot of statements attributed to one or two sources? If so, it may lead to an unbalanced article, or one that leans too heavily into a single point of view. Yes, there some statements that attributed to one or two sources but it was balanced.

Are there any unsourced statements in the article, or statements that you can't find stated in the references? Just because there is a source listed, doesn't mean it's presented accurately! No, there wasn't any.

Overall

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that described the subject in a clear way? I was impressed that you included different types of cinemas in Europe you did not just focus on one cinema.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? The one thing I would suggest is to add a lead paragraph this way you can grab the reader attention when they read the topic.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Adding a lead paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkees Al-Jaafari (talk • contribs) 10:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Menna's peer review
-You’re missing a lead. Because your article deals with more than one nation/one type of cinema, your lead can be concise and to the point, for example, you can start off by mentioning the most prominent European countries when it comes to cinema, and when they had a rise, etc.

-This article ia heavily based on the past, so rather than adding a section for current, I suggest you make this a “History of European cinema” article

-Structure is very clear and coherent

-Content is neutral and historically accurate, backed up by reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mennaazzam (talk • contribs) 08:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Reem's Comments
Content: In terms of content, the article has a good amount of information that is focused on Italian, Soviet and French cinemas. The article could benefit from including the same additions if possible, like including a style and convention section to the Soviet Cinema section as it was included for the Italian and French sections.

Tone: In terms of tone, the French cinema section, could benefit from having a different topic sentence for the introduction paragraph. For Example, instead of using “Like the other forms of art, film cinema portrays the several authenticities that face several people. France can be considered one of the main pioneers of the entire global film industry.” think of using a topic sentence that is more specific about what you are mentioning next such as the first film to be screened. Structure:

There is a good consistency of points covered in each of the countries. However, there is a benefit in following the same types of information for each like including a convention and style section for the Soviet Cinema.

Sources: There are sentences without any links to sources from where that information is supported of proved to be true. It would be good to support all sentences with a source.

This is one of the examples of information that do not have a link to a source “During the 1920s, the USSR was getting a New Economic Policy. It was a decade when certain industries had a relaxed state control that provided people with a sense of mini-capitalism inside the Communist economy."

Overall: Good job with the amount of information collected!

RalkhayatRalkhayat (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Prof. PK's Comments
There is an impressive amount of information here! However, its structure relies a bit too heavily on the organization of our class itself. Similarly, you rely a bit too much on our textbook for information, especially when it comes to Italy and France. Try to find a few more sources, and cite every fact, not just once or twice per paragraph.

If you're going to add sections on Italy, France, and the Soviet Union to the existing Cinema of Europe article, you need to be clear about which time periods you're dealing with. The Italy section in particular is quite confusing right now, as you keep bouncing back and forth between pre-neorealism and neorealism. You need to make the chronology clearer, and you can't simply stop in the 1950s!

Your citations in the Italy & Soviet Union sections are redundant--you only need the footnote links, not additional parenthetical citations.

Your links in the France section are strange--why are there brackets around every link? Also, unlike the other sections, this one does not include lists of prominent filmmakers and films.

Is there a reason you don't include Germany here? It seems very strange to leave it out.

Pkrayenbuhl (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)