User talk:Jennaseacott/sandbox

The line producer and executive producer is over represented in this article. He talks about the line and executive producer too much when he is writing in the section Clarification of the Term. He talks too much about line and executive producer instead of simply clarifying the term producer. As a result he is under representing the term producer by not clarifying on that term.--Mpanico2345 (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information in the article is very relevant to the topic. In this article it explains the role of a producer, different titles of producers, and a general overview of the term. In addition to this, the article explains the career process for becoming a producer and lists a number of Notable Producers towards the end, with links to their most notable works and a link to their Wikipedia page. While this information is certainly good to know, I feel that the there was some unnecessary information included in the Career Process section of the article. There should be more information on how to become a producer, including good entry level jobs or types of internships to look for. -- Jennaseacott (talk) January 29, 2017 (UTC)

This article appears to be very neutral in its writing style with no biases present. It goes into great depth regarding the responsibilities of different types of producers, and makes sure that each are equally represented. It also includes a variety of notable producers whom are active in the film industry, rather than focusing on just one or a few. -- sschieren (talk) January 29, 2017 (UTC)

Jenna: Good job on the paragraph in the intro section that you worked on. You also added some good content and sources in the Responsibilities and Career Process sections. Please make sure that you only copy over the portions you've added or changed when you move the work you've done over to the live page. I noticed that you had copied over the A-Z listing of "Notable Producers", but did not move over the section title. Were there any producers that you added to list? Best, Prof.bgreg (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review: Great job on the article. Each section was well organized and well structured. Non of the sections had any information that either didn't belong or was over-represented. No section was too long or too short, each one had all the information that was suppose to be in that section. Non of the sections was unnecessary and it gives a balanced and fair coverage of the topic. You did a good job of expressing the ideas you presented in your article. I liked the content that you added in these sections, and all of the sources that you used were very reliable and overall good sources. I also enjoyed the intro section that you wrote. It covered the main ideas of the sections you wrote about without giving away too many details in those sections. The only thing you need to fix is to put the section title over the A-Z listing of "Notable Producers". Also, like Professor Gregory said, you just need to make sure that you only copy over the parts you changed/added when we move the work to the live page. Other than that, I really enjoyed the sections you added and you did a great job of editing and revising them.--Mpanico2345 (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Response: Thank you for your feedback, Matthew! I added the title of "Notable Producers" over the A-Z listing section and will make sure that I only copy over the parts I changed/added when we move the work to the live page. Jennaseacott (talk) 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jennaseacott: Hi! Since you're working on a pretty well-developed article and there are also changes that your classmate is planning to make, I suggest isolating your initial changes to a single section. That way, you won't risk overwriting other people's work. I couldn't tell which parts were your work and which were copied over, but if you pare it down to a single section and give me a ping, I can take another look. --Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]