Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23aac018f6bbde9

Jump to content

Talk:Deanne Foley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): UnoriginalUsername. Peer reviewers: LoneUniStudent, Cmp123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Untitled

[edit]

This article is very well done, and I am not just saying that. It is very thoroughly researched, has a ton of information, and is quite interesting. You clearly put a lot of work into the details of each section, especially the 'Career' section. I only found a few minor formatting mistakes, but they are easily fixed (italics under film/TV titles). The biggest thing that may need a change is the headings. While everything you wrote may pertain to the career of Deanne, it could be broken up into different headings, just for organizational purposes. You could add an 'Early Career' section and include everything up until her first feature. For the rest of the information, perhaps a 'Feature Film' section, followed by a 'Television' section would work. If you wanted you could also just split both of her features into different sections and label them by the film's title. For the 'Awards and honours' section, making it into a bulleted list could make it seem more organized, but I will leave that up to you because I honestly think the way you have it formatted now is totally fine (it is just different compared to other article I have seen). Other than what I have already stated, I think your article is great. Good job on your research, you deserve an excellent mark! LoneUniStudent (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Reply