User talk:Sivan 99
| This user is a student editor in Carleton_University/Analyzing_Cinema,_Gender,_and_Sexuality_(Fall_2019) . |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Sivan 99, 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.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Notes
[edit]Hi, I have some notes for you:
- I've moved the content at the top of your sandbox to your sandbox talk page so I can get a better idea of how the article will look.
- I retitled the section entitled "controversy". Traditionally this section contains information about controversies pertaining to the article topic, such as you see in sections like this one. As such, this type of title would imply that the filmmaker was the focus of several controversies as opposed to her directing movies that center on controversial topics. I would suggest that this be a reception section but giving it the general title of film topics should allow it to contain general information as well as how people responded to the films.
- Now to build on the last point, be extremely careful about labeling something as controversial as this can be seen as subjective to the reader. We need sourcing that states that they tackle controversial topics. It's not that you can't use the term - if their film topics are widely considered to be controversial then it's fine to list them. Just make sure that this is something that is commonly stated by critics and sourcing.
- You also want to be very careful to ensure that this doesn't read as promotional, as some of this reads a little like a press release. For example, I think that the second sentence in the personal life section is kind of PR-ish since it doesn't really add anything to the section and can be seen as a fairly general statement people make when they choose to become a parent, whether single or not. It doesn't really show the why of the situation, just that she felt ready - something that isn't really unique to someone seeking out a sperm donor.
- Grady said about her decision to embark on motherhood, “I have a good career, an amazing mother, great friends. I feel satisfied. I can do this myself.”
- Now it would have been better to phrase it along the lines of this:
- Of her decision to use a sperm donor, Grady stated that she had previously assumed that motherhood and matrimony were entwined together but realized that marriage or a partner was unnecessary as "I have a good career, an amazing mother, great friends. I feel satisfied. I can do this myself.”
- This shows the "why" of the situation since it wasn't simply that she felt ready but rather that she realized that she didn't need to have a husband or partner in order to become a mother. It also sounds less promotional since it provides a reason for the quote to be there.
- Now other content that may seem promotional may need something else to give it a reason to be in teh article, such as attribution. Other times it may need to be re-written.
- Be careful of quotes. Sometimes it's better to write the material in your own words, as sometimes quotes can make something unintentionally promotional or they can just feel superfluous, as covered above.
Overall I think that you're on a good track here - my main caution here is to be careful with how things are stated and written. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Rachel Grady
[edit]Minor revisions needed.
- A great start and good sources!
- I recommend writing a full paragraph for the lead section, as that is a standard feature of Wikipedia articles. Some guidelines here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section
- Ensure that the Controversy section cites/quotes secondary sources discussing the controversy around One of Us, rather than the filmmakers themselves. This will help ensure that your article maintains a neutral point of view.
- It would be preferable to find secondary sources that discuss her films rather than quoting the filmmaker herself to make sure the tone remains neutral, and also since primary sources don't count towards notability.
CropMilk (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Peer Review - Rachel Grady edits/comments
[edit]- Bio is very small - maybe add more information or add it to the top part that explains who she is
- Quite a few spelling errors, maybe re-read it again to find more I change a couple sentence.
- Some sentences need more syntax, they don't flow very well
- Don't link another Wikipedia page if it doesn't exist ex: Norman Lear: Just Another Version of You in the Filmography section
- Filmography section would do without the 'subject matter" column it does not enhance the article, maybe instead put 'role'?
- good article though, with a lot of sources! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ch8008766 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)