User talk:LoDups/sandbox

Gvievy's Peer Review
You have made a great start on additions to Sarah Gavron's article! The quote's explaining why Gavron became a filmmaker and why Suffragette was left open-ended were strong additions. Including her influences is also interesting information to share! The article also appears relatively neutral, and it is good that you included the critiques against Suffragette and Brick Lane as it does not appear to bias one perspective of her work over another. Some specific changes I can suggest or critiques I have are: Gvievy (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need the description of each of her films in the lead. This could be added under the career section. Instead, leave that she is the director of four short films and three features, and then list her films without a summary of them.
 * In the lead you could leave in that her most recent film was Suffragette, and a brief description (i.e you could leave how it tells the story about the suffragette movement, but remove the rest of the sentence about how it focuses on three women and move it under Career.)
 * You are missing the second quotation marks that would end the quote in two separate places - the quote about why she got into film-making, and also the quote of how Suffragette is the first film focusing on the fight for women's suffrage.
 * The description of the Brick Lane film could be put before Suffragette to make the Career section more chronological
 * I also think the information about her time at Edinburgh College and her influences should go under Biography, rather than in the lead.

Minor revisions necessary. You should consider flipping what you have written under the Career section so that it flows chronologically. Consider revising the sentence where you mention Gavron’s time working under Stephen Frears and her filmmaking influences. The information is interesting and pertinent but the sentence is awkwardly worded as it is. You also have a section where you indicate that you still have more to add, completing the draft getting it into the best shape you can for peer review will make it easier for you to incorporate feedback in order to make your final draft as best as possible. Otherwise, good work!

Batcow39 (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Peer Review
QueenBegonia13 (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Overall, good article.
 * Try adding in some external links to create more accessibility within the article for the reader.
 * I enjoyed the end of the lead section where you write about why she got into film making. This is an interesting point. Stating her influences is also interesting and the article is written in a neutral perspective which is great.
 * I also enjoyed how you explained the open ending of Suffragette and backed it up with reasoning.
 * Missing quotation marks at the end of "got into filmmaking to make a difference"
 * Missing quotation marks at the end of the first sentence in the career section. ("this first major feature film to focus...")
 * I suggest moving the short summaries of her films into the career section.
 * You may also want to create a biography section that includes her education and personal life information.
 * References are good.