User talk:Paulaacocal/Barbara Kopple

Peer Review
Great job on this, Paula!

Barbara seems like a great choice and you've clearly found a lot of good information to add.

Adding notable interns from her production company was a smart choice, it shows that she has other filmmakers' best interests at heart. It might be interesting to note something that one of those interns has done. Ex. Jesse Moss, director of Boys State, or whatever the most notable one is.

What is the relevance of her family criticizing the censorship of Paul Robeson? I may have missed something, but I don't see his connection to her in the original article. Is this a way to add more context about her family? More about her early life could be interesting, so I would suggest continuing to research her background as best as you can.

The personal life section of her Wikipedia is also only one sentence long and it just says who she married. Any other information about her personal life would be good to add to this section, anything you can find about where she lives, interests, affiliations would be good.

Her styles and themes sections brings up a few of her films and quotes about them, you could research how another film was received and add more to this section if you wanted.

I also noticed that American Dream was its full own section and the rest of her filmography is all put together. You could talk about one of her other important films in depth. It might also be a good idea to touch more on how her films were received by critics and audience.

2004 to the present is a huge window, perhaps it could be broken down into 2004-2012, 2012-present, or something like that?

I really liked the way whoever created my filmmaker's page laid out her filmography. It's in a table with the films, the year they were made, and the distributor, it brings more attention to her actual work and I think it's a great way to lay out the material.

Overall, very interesting topic. Can't wait to see your finished page! Ishubatt (talk) 18:28, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review
Very good job! There are new information in your articles that reflected in the updated lead and it included content that is not in the original article. The lead is concise but I think there can be more information to makes the overview more comprehensive. The introductory sentence is clear but I think it is from the original article. The information she added is a really important information for us to understand this filmmaker in terms of her achievement.

The content you added in relevant to the topic and are all useful information. The content is up-to-date and are all from there are no contents that are not belong to the reference. The tone is neutral and there is no overrepresented or underrepresented issue in the content, and the content is well-written and not grammatical issues. Meanwhile, the sources are all clearly cited and they are all from reliable literatures or journals. However, I think it will be better if you can add more additional information according to your sources.

Moreover, you didn't incorporate any images in the content but added link to other articles to help us better understand your point. The article also contains necessary section headings, and your content accurately represent her sources. However, I think you can do more research to incorporate more sources to make it better.

In all, I think the contents you added improve the original article and make the article more complete. But it think it will be better to incorporate more things from the sources or do more research to find more sources to elaborate on this filmmaker. Right now, most of the contents are still from the original article and the content you added is not that exhaustive. From the content you've already incorporated, I see your good understand of the sources and you have a strong summarizing skill. As a result, if you can add more your own content, the article will get a significant improvement for sure! Vicccshi (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)