User talk:Soldejaneiro

Welcome!
Hello, Soldejaneiro, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Shalor and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft notes
Hi! I have some notes for you:


 * Not all of the references used are reliable. Wikipedia cannot be used to source itself and IMDb is not seen as a reliable source because the site doesn't really quality check user submitted content. People have submitted deliberately incorrect information to IMDb and it was still posted.
 * Mubi is OK to use as a source, but keep in mind that the site would be seen as a routine database listing at best so it can't establish notability. You can also use Rotten Tomatoes, however since it doesn't have any critic reviews it would also be seen as a routine database listing in this situation.
 * This source from the Centro de Capacitación Cinematográfica is a routine notification of an event, so it would be seen as trivial source at best and as such can't establish notability.
 * Now that said, the book source is definitely usable. Definitely try to find more sources like that and stuff like coverage of her in newspapers, such as stories about her or reviews of her film.


 * Be careful when it comes to opinion statements. Terms like "revolutionary" can be seen as subjective depending on who is reading the page. As such, it's important that you attribute these to the person making the claim. On this note, all major claims need to be backed up with a reliable source, preferably an independent one, to show that the claims are true.

This overall needs more coverage to back up claims and establish notability, plus the opinion statements need to be attributed. Offhand I do see some coverage out there for her in places like here, here, here, and here. I also found reviews for one of her films on Metacritic, all of which are in reliable newspapers and magazines. This review for The Comet is usable as well. There's also this review for the same movie, but in Spanish since it's in La Jornada. This article is also in Spanish, which may pose some issues if you're not able to read Spanish.

Hopefully that can help get you started with searching and tweaking the article to get it ready to move live. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Marisa Sistach
Minor revisions needed. CropMilk (talk) 14:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Good start, well-structured overall!
 * Currently, you’re a bit short of the 500 words of new prose minimum (remember, the filmography doesn’t count, just the sections with paragraphs!)
 * Double check the format of the filmography section; ‘Bio’ is not the correct sub-heading for film descriptions.
 * Ensure that every factual statement is cited, i.e. “She directed her first film, a short live action piece, titled ¿Y si Platicamos de Agosto? in 1980, for which she won an Ariel (Mexican Academy Award)”, as well as general editing, i.e. the final sentence in the Early Life and Education section.
 * Minimize the use of non-reliable sources (i.e. IMBD and Wikipedia). The Arredondo article is great; if you need help finding other high-quality sources, please get in touch!

Peer Review
Hi there,

You created a good page with important content for Marisa Sistach. The material within the article is relevant to the topic. I only have a few suggestions to make your article even better.

You have some reliable sources on your page, however, you should not use IMDB as a source on Wikipedia. I would suggest finding other sources for those sentences if possible.

Overall, the tone of the article is a bit too casual for a Wikipedia page. It would be beneficial to change the tone into something more formal that way the article won't be seen as just an opinion. One sentence I noticed at the beginning when you state, "A significant part of the third-wave..." It sounds more of an opinion than a statement so I would suggest adding "it was stated that..." Additionally, I would argue that the sentence, "Latin American women filmmakers, particularly Mexican women filmmakers, are often overlooked and neglected by both the film industry and audiences." seems subjective to the specific source. You may want to make it clear that you are citing the author's opinion or find other sources the support the claim. Water392 (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi there! What I liked most about your article was how much you were able to convey Sistach's cultural importance while remaining neutral. She clearly has contributed a lot to Mexican's film industry and the subject of feminism and women's issues so it is great that you highlighted that. Clearly Sistach's films have some more controversial topics, and you touch on this briefly in the "career and legacy" section. I think if you delved into this more, it could add a bit more context to your article. Maybe by outlining one or two of her most well-known/ successful films, the reader would be able to see exactly some of her interests as a filmmaker apart from the generality of women's issues. As well, in your introductory paragraph in which you say "Scholars have stated that Sistach is a significant part of third-wave, prolific female directors in Mexican cinema," what does this mean? Perhaps in a different paragraph you could elaborate a bit more on this third-wave, female directorship era, as I am sure many readers are unaware of this phenomenon, especially if you're unfamiliar with Mexican filmmaking history. This could add additional validity to Sistach as a filmmaker, too. Other than that, your grammar and overall layout flowed really well and was an easy and engaging read, good job!Sivan 99 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)