Talk:Lynne Littman

message: There are many strengths to this Wikipedia page as it starts with a brief sentence that summarizes the significance of this person and the date they were born, this is a good opening line as it makes it clear what this page is going to be about but doesn’t go into too much detail about their life.
Another strong aspect is that the text is encyclopedia like meaning it gives straight forward details of the person’s life for anyone to understand. Plus, it follows standard writing conventions in the sense that it is has correct grammar and spelling.
The article is also neutral, there are no words used that imply the author has enforced their opinion onto the information and there is no bias. This means I am unable to tell the authors point of view from this article.
The sources used are reliable as the first two used are encyclopedia’s meaning they are trustworthy and the references are strong because the author includes page numbers so the information can be found easily. 
However, there are some weaknesses that include repetition which is unnecessary. Under the lead, the author has mentioned the filmmakers most famous film with a short description of the film. I don’t think the description is necessary, all we need to know is the awards that were won from the film as another page will explore the film in more depth. But the author has mentioned this film twice; once in the beginning and the other under the career heading. The author goes into more detail about the film under the career heading which is good but only needs to be mentioned once.
To improve the author could have included at least one image of the filmmaker on the right side in the box so that the article is not just purely text. 
The career section has more information, so to improve there could be more detail added to early life and personal life. Although, it is good that out of all the headings, career has the most information as that is the most important heading and that is the reason why most people will be reading that Wikipedia page. However, more information under the other headings could make this article stronger.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hwolowitz123 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: Great job on your article so far! You make good use of credible sources and manage to remain succinct and neutral through most of your writing, and I like your use of tables and legends. Below I've listed some pointers for how to make your article even better. 
°Try to avoid phrases like "most famous" and "known for", they imply fame and recognition and may be read as promotional.
°I would change "Commonly she worked with..." to "She often worked with...".
°The third and fourth sentences under "Career" should be reworded so they flow better. 
°Add the film's year made after "What Harvest for the Reaper" and "Testament".
°In the third paragraph under "Career" you mention that a script was "well-recieved by all involved", this may be a generalization and should either be reworded or used in a direct quote if it is in one of your articles.
°In the last sentence under "Personal Life" I would use her son's name instead of the word "child" since there were two children mentioned in the previous sentence. 
°Add a source to your filmography.
Overall the article was very well written, with a few minor changes you should be well prepared. :)
Tillercat (talk) 22:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving Your Article