User talk:Ralkhayat/sandbox

Tony's Peer Review
Call Her Savage Overview

Lead: There is no lead that introduces what the article will be about yet.

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? Although the introduction does hint on what the article will be talking about, it still does not give enough reason to as why the topic is important.

Looking at the lead again after reading the rest of the article, does the lead reflect the most important information? No, there is no correlation between the article and the lead so far (or introduction in this case).

'''Structure: Overall, good. I just want to see more. '''

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The sections are relatively organized well, as you start introducing Clara Bow and then depictions in the film itself. The order follows a very funnel-like categorization since it goes from the general to specifics.

'''Balancing Act: This problem will be solved by more content in your sections that are important. '''

Is each 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? So far, the sections are too short. Each a sentence max. However, by ranking their length based off of their importance, it would be a good way to draw reader’s attention to what you think is important for them to leave this article knowing more about.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? No, the article only presents the film Call Her Savage in a positive light. It shows it as a film that was revolutionary. Although it could have been, I think you can strengthen it much more by adding more viewpoints to it and making it seem much more complex.

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? There are no complete conclusions from the article, it is much more implicit from what

'''Objectivity: Add the second point of view - e.g. The film being bad '''

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Yes, the film is presented in a favorable light and this could weave in some sort of bias.

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, the opinion is more implied from what was selected to be included.

Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say..." No, it is very factual.

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. Yes, we do not negative sides of the film Call Her Savage. Only the positive information is expressed.

'''Sources: Very diverse choices. Just fix the references links that say OpenAM. '''

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, some are newspapers and blog articles, that rank lower in credibility, but overall they seem credible.

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. No, each sentence has a different source.

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, however there are some problems with the way sources are cited. Some of them are registered as links in the references that say ‘Open AM (Login)’. Instead, those should be cited as the journal article not as a webpage.

'''Overall: Good first try. '''

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? The content. The fact that a film this old contained many positive depictions that people are still not capable of portraying to this very day. Especially about female depictions.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? Make much longer, add another point of view, and work on the structure to make it in a logical order.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Content- making it longer

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! The concise wording makes it so much easier to read, and is something I’d like to apply to our article as well.

TonyElGhazal (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

The opening section should concentrate film firstly. It was not clear why this film was important. The lead does not reflect the most important information There is missing information because the lead concentrates on the actress “Clara Bow” more than the film itself so it was difficult to understand the importance of the film in history.

•	A clear structure

The section seems unorganized because it should be based on the characteristics of the film but not solely about the actress. The length of the article is not enough but the sub heading seems like interesting subjects which could be expanded.

•'''Balanced coverage '''

There’s little conflicting arguments from different sources which makes it unable to have balanced coverage

•	Neutral content

The content of the article is limited so it is very neutral so far. However, there are used throughout the article which could have many connotations and should be avoided just in case of bias.

•	Reliable sources

The article uses reliable sources and has not made unfounded claims. So far, the sources are not repetitive is not based on a single point of view. Looking at the sources I discovered that the statement is accurate and presentable.

•	Overall

More information about the film is needed, its importance and much more detail to highlight. However, the article seems interesting and I feel it has a lot of potential.

Abdulazizjalthani (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Balkees's peer review
Call her Savage

Lead:

Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? As for the introduction that was included I did get an idea of the article. The lead does not reflect the most important information, which is why is this topic important?

Structure:

Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? I think the sections are organized well, it was good to see that Clara Bow is the introduction.

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? The length of the sections is too short, I think there is should be more information added in each section.

Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? The article does not reflect all the perspectives on the film which is Call her Savage. Maybe there can be more information about the film what people think about it?

Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, there was not any conclusions that convinced the reader. Neutral Content:

Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? Yes, I was able to guess the perspective of the author by reading the article and this can cause some bias.

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. Yes, because all the information that was provided about the film is positive. I think the reader needs both points of view not just one.

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, some of the statements do rely on newspapers and blogs.

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. No, every statement had a different source.

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, but the citation is wrong especially for the journal articles.

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? What impressed me the most about this film is the female depictions.

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I think there should be more information about the film, so it can grab the reader attention more.

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Making the content longer and adding a lead paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balkees Al-Jaafari (talk • contribs) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Mariam Kamal's Peer Review
Lead: Looking at the lead by itself, do I feel satisfied that I know the importance of the topic? The introduction does not lead to why the topic is important because it lacks reason and explanation. The lead does not reflect the most important information, which is why is this topic important? No, there was no clear introduction or lead that explained why the topic is important.

Structure: Are the sections organized well, in a sensible order? Would they make more sense presented some other way (chronologically, for example)? The sections are well organized because each one leads to the other.

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? The sections of the article are very short and uninformative. Does the article reflect all the perspectives represented in the published literature? Are any significant viewpoints left out or missing? There was only one viewpoint written which was about the film “call her savage” which presented the movie in a positive manner. I think adding more viewpoints and making it more neutral would help improve it. Does the article draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept one particular point of view? No, there were no drawn conclusions yet.

Neutral Content: Do you think you could guess the perspective of the author by reading the article? yes, there is no neutrality in the review of the film. 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 were no phrases like that in the article. Does the article make claims on behalf of unnamed groups or people? For example, "some people say...". No. 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 mainly had positive information which seemed very one-sided and bias.

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? Most of the sources used are books and journal articles that seem reliable. 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. Every statement has its own source. 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, but there are sources that are cited in the wrong way.

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 like the topic and the approach the article is trying to take seems very interesting and intriguing. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I would highly suggest to include more information that would add length to the article and I would also recommend making the article neutral and factual based to eliminate all type of biases. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? The length and depth of the article. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! There is a similarity in the sense that both our articles focus on women and their roles in the film industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MariamKamal2021 (talk • contribs) 11:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Shaikha's Peer Review
Lead

To begin with, I was not sure what the Wikipedia article was going to be about. The lead did not describe it or discuss what Call Her Savage is. I still did not know what it was after going through the whole article. Upon conducting my own research, I found out that it is a docudrama from 1932. Such information would be really helpful to understand what the article is about. The lead could also use the introduction of what you will be talking about such as the film, the portrayals, and other depictions.

Structure

The structure was not as strong as it has the potential to be. There is room for major improvement in terms of structuring the introduction, the movie, the actress, her role, portrayals, etc in an order that transitions smoothly and informatively. The sections are too short and there is so much room to add information. I believe that there are more sections that could be implemented in the article upon research.

Balanced Coverage

I do not believe that there is balanced coverage. Again, there is room for much more information such as discussing more about the movie, the year it was released, where it was released and premiered, the genre, the cast, the crew, etc. There is also more room for information in the depictions and portrayals section. There are many different viewpoints that could be implemented upon further research.

Neutral Content

There are no biasses or claims, however, I feel like there was a selection of specific perspectives that do not tackle everything that could be implemented. The article flows from a positive perspective only. There is more room to discuss how depictions of females and LGBTQ were during the time of the movie release. You can research how such a movie influenced the movie industry or the viewers if there are articles or journals about their depictions during that era.

Reliable Sources

Each source seems reliable enough. However, I feel like the article does not have enough sources (to be added to more information) and thus contributed to an article that is not as strong as it could be. Some of the sources were inaccessible as they required a login portal. If I was not a Northwestern student, I would not have been able to access them. Therefore, you could find the journals/articles/etc. that you chose and cite them originally. Overall

Overall, the article captured my interest in knowing more about Call Her Savage and Clara Bow. After reading it, I felt unsatisfied as I did not get much information. It would be really helpful if you added more information to each section and also discuss the movie itself (since it is what the article is about). What would help you is if you write the article in a way that is like describing it to someone who has never heard of it before.

Prof. PK's Comments
Your peers have made some helpful comments, which I will echo: This needs more, and it should probably feature different sections. You don't need a section on Clara Bow, because there's a whole Wiki page devoted to her (which you can link to). Perhaps a section on "Production"? And then another on "Representation" in general? I'm surprised you didn't find sources about Native American representation, in addition to LGBT representation--keep looking! Seek Jeremy's help, or mine, if you're struggling.

It would also be helpful to add a section on "Reception." Trade magazines of the time would have reported on this--I will send you some links to access them.

Finally, be sure to fix the bibliographic references and links to the sources you already have. Many of them are broken, and refer to the Northwestern access proxy. If you access newspapers and journals online, you do not necessarily need to include links, just the regular newspaper/journal reference info.

Pkrayenbuhl (talk) 11:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)