Amichevrolet

Welcome!

Hello, Amichevrolet, 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
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions on our Q&A site, ask.wikiedu.org

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Hi, I have some notes for you:

• Avoid using subjective, point of view phrases and terms in articles like "passion for" and "successful". These have three issues. The first is that they're inherently non-neutral and as such, can make the article have a bias. The second is that since these are subjective, one reader may agree with the choice of terms or phrases while the next may not - the article shouldn't specifically tell the reader whether or not someone is good, successful, or their work is entertaining, the best representation, and so on. The third issue is that subjective statements often come across as promotional, like we're trying to convince the reader to see the person or topic in a specific light and tell them to feel a certain way - both of which would not be what the article should do.

We can quote other people making these statements and clearly attribute them, but the claims shouldn't be written in Wikipedia's voice. I can't stress this enough. The article has issues with this, so the subjective statements need to be removed or attributed.

• The term filmmaker is pretty vague and as such, it would be better to be more specific if possible. It's not something that needs to be removed necessarily, but keep in mind that the term basically encompasses any and every role in the film world, akin to how the word "employee" will cover all roles within a business, from the janitor to the CEO.

• The lead should only be a general overview of the article's contents, so be careful about going into too many specifics in the lead - those should be in the main article. I'm thinking specifically of the details like "as family and social support remain to be a challenge for many hoping to pursue careers in film", as none of this information is in the body of the article and should be.

• The themes section comes across as original research, as it is written like it's your own interpretation of the films - keep in mind that we can only summarize what others have stated in the sources. We cannot create our own interpretations or theories, nor make our own connections - it has to be explicitly stated in the source material. Anything that is opinion needs to be attributed so that it doesn't come across as something we made up ourselves.

• Your sourcing here is definitely good - it could use more sourcing, but you've chosen some good sources.

I hope that this helps! I know that some of this may sound harsh, but I do think that you have a good base here and a lot of this will really just be removing the POV terms and/or attributing them, as well as some general shifting around of content. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Peer Feedback

Hello,

Your article is very well-detailed, especially the lead paragraph and the Career section. I could tell that this filmmaker was thoroughly researched because the article provides lots of useful information on her life and career. The article is also very well-written with good sources to back up the information. However, I would read it through and watch out for run-on sentences. For my direct contribution, I have taken the time to edit a few sentences to make the article read smoother. Also, I would add citations in-text where they are needed, especially in the Representation of Women and Islam section.

My other major critique is the organization of the page. Film analysis sections such as the Bab al-sama' maftooh and Keïd Ensa should be under the Filmography header. Filmography should also be under the Career header. I would also recommend separating the different career paths Benlyazid has taken in the Career section. For example, don't switch back and forth between discussing her filmmaking and her journalism. Besides these few critiques, the article is very well done and provides a lot of valuable information.

Thestrongestonehere (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Thestrongestonehere

Peer Review: Farida Benlyazid

• Citations go after the period, unless in the middle of a sentence
• Instead of putting multiple citations side by side like this , try and put them more directly where you reference that information in the text.
• Needs more citation throughout - it also says (citation needed) especially "Representation of Women and Islam"
• Filmography could be turned a table with role, year and film as the categories
• I think finding my sources for your Analysis' of the films would be beneficial so it sounds less like a personal essay

Still a lot of great content! Nice and throughout and I like how you include the analysis and film summaries.