User talk:Mennaazzam/sandbox

Mariam's Peer Review
Lead

The article is great! However, there is no evidence of a lead or an 'Overview' section on what the article is about. The lead should address the importance of the topic where it should include the most important information that the article reflects. In this case, I would suggest a lead which briefly introduces Youssef Chahine and what makes film stand out from all the other international and Egyptian filmmakers to grasp the reader's attention into your topic. You might also want to include some of his successful films and works. Make sure that you don't give away so much information about Youssef Chahine in the lead and ensure to weight out the information provided.

A Clear Structure

The article lays a clear evidence of a chronological structure in which the article starts with talking about the early life of Youssef Chahine including his relationship with his family and his brother and how he wanted to grow to become a filmmaker. Then the article speaks more about his undergraduate education and how he achieved to purr what he want. However, I feel before heading to talk about the controversies, you might want to continue this chronological order and have a section about his career and the various places and countries he worked in and whether he worked his entire life as a film director or did his work in other media related careers. After the career, you might want include some sections for the his major films or award winning films and discuss their plot.Then you could begin with the controversies, cinematic style and politics. Great Info though!

A Balancing Act

There is a sense of a balancing act in which each section's length is equal to the importance of the topic and provides all the necessary information. So far ,I get the sense that the article is speaking in the perspective of Youssef Chahine and how did he felt about his childhood and education. This article might be lacking a bit of other people's viewpoint for example, you could include what other people thought of Youssef Chahine and his work to balance out the article and provide various viewpoints and perspectives. In fact, for more improvement, you could also find interviews of people who played a major role and influenced his life and you could also include quotes of them to make sure that the article is balanced and includes different perspectives.

Neutral Content

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the article is drawn from the perspective of Youssef Chahine and should include more perspectives to achieve a neutral article. However, I also feel that the article so far provides too many positive emphasis on Youssef Chahine which could take away the neutral aspect of the article. Therefore to avoid this, you could perhaps list some of his controversial films if there were any and discuss how they are controversial or talk about some of the critics who were against his works or films. The would balance out the article without focusing more on neither the positive nor the negative aspects of Youssef Chahine.

Reliable Sources

Nearly all of the information and statements are based on reliable sources from academic journals written about Youssef Chahine, including one interview with him the Journal of Cinema and Media. The statements are balanced out in which each statement is from a different journal. However, I have noticed that most of the statements are unsourced and do not provide an in text citation although they are state in the references.So it is best to go over each statement and ensure that it is cited to its correct source.

Overall the article is great! Well Done!

Amal's Peer Review

Strengths: 1) The structure is clear and easy to follow. I was wondering how controversies would be different from the politics section, and whether those two can be merged under cinematic style. Also, be careful of the title cinematic style, because it might restrict you to the visual language only. 2) Balanced coverage in both sections. I loved how you used multiple sources to create a Kurosawa effect. 3) The content is neutral. It's actual history! 4) Sources are reliable and varied.

Weaknesses: 1) You didn't have a lead paragraph but I'm assuming it's because the page already has one. 2) Because you're working with an article that already exists, I was wondering how you can use some of the content that is already on the article. 3) Some of the content on the actual article does not have any sources- you may want to try to do something about that. Just skimming through the talk page I noticed that there were big question marks about the Gay/Bisexual part - The source they use doesn't even exist. The awards section is also lacking.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmalAlMuftah (talk • contribs) 19:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Maha's Peer Review –
'''Lead: Firstly, I feel like you should add the title "Youssef Chahine" before writing anything in your sandbox. Secondly, there is no lead describing the topic. I suggest you include a brief explanation of what it is etc and do not forget a lead. Make sure you include essential information at the beginning of the article.

Structure: The overall structure is great. It looks like a typical Wikipedia article. I like how you included subctopics which makes the overall structure clear and concise. The only downsides are the missing title and missing lead. I suggest you un-italisize the subtopics because the WikiEd tutorials showed to only bold the subtopics. You can use italics for Chahine's name.

Balancing Act: Looking at the article, I think there is balanced coverage. You included a great amount of information on the topic regardless of the fact that the lead was missing. There is sufficient coverage on your chosen topic. I like how you and your group included background information (on his parents etc). You included in-depth infromation on his life. Although, as I stated previously, I advise you to add a lead about Youssef Chahine in general before writing about his childhood and early-life. Maybe add a paragraph before this subtopic?

Objectivity:''' Your article was clear, concise and objective. The use of language was neutral and followed an objective approach. There was one typo I would like to point out which was under Undergrad education, you wrote "His parents refused, and tried to talk him out of him." which I assume you meant "His parents refused, and tried to talk him out of it.". You followed a comprehensive, neutral approach when writing this article which is great.

Sources: The sources you used are reliable journal articles and E-books which makes the article more prestige. The sources were great, however, I think you should use more sources to back up and reference the facts. The more sources, the more reliable and more professional your article will appear to the readers.

Overall:''' I think your article follows a professional structure with subtopics and sufficient information which is objective. The things you should fix are: add a lead to introduce the topic, un-italisize your subtopics, add more citations to back up your facts and sentences, and fix the minor typo. Regardless, your article was clear because of the subtopics and your use of language/sentence structure helps the reader keep focus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MahaThAl (talk • contribs) 22:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Prof. PK's Comments
This is a good start, but it definitely needs more--more sources, and more content. I see that you have some sections at the bottom with no info, so fill them out!

You also need more citations: there has to be more than 1 citation at the end of the paragraph. Instead, you should be citing every sentence or 2. Here's a random model for you: note how in the "Early life and education" section of the page for Maureen O'Hara, there is a citation basically every sentence, with page numbers.

Talk to Jeremy if you need help finding more sources.

Pkrayenbuhl (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)