This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because… I would like to have suggestions be made for the article to try and aim the article to Feature article status. Any comments would be appreciated.
Thanks, -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon review of your article and consultation of the criteria at WP:FA? IMO your article meets most of those. It was in my opinon at least as good as the published biographies which it's information was gleaned from, and far more complete. Therefore I have no reservations about upgrading this article to A level status. I will not nominate this for Featured Article status. I leave that up to you. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ruhrfisch comments
- I agree this looks pretty good, but think it needs a copyedit for minor polish.
- For example Dunst began her career as a child fashion model at the age of three in television commercials.[3][6] might read better as Dunst began her career at the age of three as a child fashion model in television commercials.[3][6]
- Or there seems to be a missing word in The film received generally unfavorable reviews,[12] but every critic had praise Dunst's [for?] performance; ...
- Or here, surely by now we know not only the opening weekend box office, but also the total: The film earned $114,844,116 during its opening weekend.[20]?
- My only oither comment would be to add some more on critical reviews of her work to the lead
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ink Runner comments
- Like Ruhrfisch said, the article looks pretty good; there doesn't appear to be anything that would break it at FAC. That being said, there are some minor comments:
In the "Years Active" section of the infobox, you use a hyphen. I'm pretty sure it should be an en dash (–).
"The film received generally good reviews" (This is a very, very nitpicky comment, but) some might construe this to mean that the reviews were of good quality, not that the reviewers found the movie to be good. Change to "favorable reviews" perhaps?
In the section about Jumanji do "jungle" and "dice" have to be wikilinked? Arguably, they should be familiar to most readers of the article, and they're not directly relevant to an article about Kirsten Dunst, methinks.
- Removed; I "copied" the info. from the movie's article, thus having the wikilinks.
- "who plays a hotshot on his way back down, during the Wimbledon Championships." "Hotshot" is slang, so is there another way to describe Bettany's character?
- I've had a hard time trying to write this out. Do you think you can help?
- I'm not acquainted with the movie, so maybe "hotshot" is the best way to describe Bettany's character. The best solution I can think of is to put "hotshot" in quotation marks—but this would only work if a reliable source (like one of the reviews for the movie) used that word (since all quotes have to be sourced). If no reliable source uses that word, then you might have to find a non-slang replacement in a thesaurus or something.
- How 'bout that he was once a great tennis player, but now is fading as an athlete. IDK, something like that. Because the premise of the movie is that she's a rising star and he's going down as one.
- I think that would work well, too.
- Alright, I'll try to write that out.
- I added this ---> "In 2004, she appeared in the romantic comedy Wimbledon (2004), a film which stars Dunst as a rising tennis player opposite Paul Bettany, who plays as a fading tennis athlete, during the Wimbledon Championships", don't know if it helps.
- That sounds good, but I have just a suggestion: "...Wimbledon (2004), a film in which she plays a rising tennis player in the Wimbledon Championships opposite Paul Bettany, who plays a fading former tennis star."
- Your suggestion is better than mine.
You write that Elizabethtown was "panned with mixed reviews". According to Dictionary.com, "panned" means "criticized severely", but doesn't "mixed reviews" mean that the movie earned favorable ones too? Perhaps change to "garnered mixed reviews"?
"Dunst's next film role was in the 2006 biographical film Marie Antoinette. The film is adapted from Antonia Fraser’s book Marie Antoinette: The Journey. In the film, her second with director Sofia Coppola, Dunst plays the title character." -> "Dunst's next film role was the title character in the 2006 biographical film Marie Antoinette. The film, adapted from Antonia Fraser's book Marie Antoinette: The Journey was Dunst's second with director Sofia Coppola". IMO, that just seems to flow better. But it's a matter of opinion, I guess.
"but every film critic complimented Dunst's performance" Without a reference, this might be challenged, especially since there aren't any qualifiers attached to it. Maybe use Rottentomatoes or some movie-review aggregate site as a ref?
- Well, that movie wasn't one of her "biggest" films. So, would it be a good idea to remove the sentence?
- I think it's all right to include the reviews, but just don't say that "every" film critic complimented the performance, because FAC reviewers might point out that the only way to verify that claim is to link to every single review of the film. So change it to "many critics" or "most critics complimented ..." Again, Rottentomatoes or some aggregate review site might serve as a ref here.
- Rotten Tomatoes doesn't provide any critical review, just how critics rated the movie.
- Rottentomatoes has links to the reviews though, right? I mean that would be easier than citing each review individually.
- Actually, I have the Metacritic source for the reviews and stuff.
"the San Francisco Chronicle in review of the film, noted: "Dunst beautifully balances innocence and wantonness."" -> "San Francisco Chronicle critic Peter Stack noted in his review that Dunst "beautifully ..."
"On her father's side, Dunst is of German descent[4] and on her mother's side, is of Swedish descent.[5]" The MoS prefers that footnotes be put after punctuation, so move footnote [4] to the end of the sentence.
Brianboulton comments: There are numerous (mainly minor) prose, punctuation and structure issues to be resolved before the article goes to FAC. So far I have only got as far as the "Early work" subsection:
- In the lead
- Any reason why the pronunciation is in a footnote? This doesn't appear to be the normal practice; also, is this really necessary, given that the pronunciation seems quite straightforward?
- When I started working on the article the pronunciation was there and I left it alone. But, since it has been brought up, I've removed it.
- In the first paragraph you mention the 1994 role that "brought her widespread recognition". In the next paragraph you say she "became well-known" after being cast in the Spider-man films, which didn't happen until 2002. I'd say she was pretty well-known before 2002, and the later text of your article bears this out. It might be more appropriate to say that the Spider-man role "brought her international recognition" or something like that, rather than just making her well-known.
- "She will next star in the 2009 films..." This time-specific sentence will soon be out of date. It should be possible to rephrase it so it won't have to be changed in the next few months, e.g.: "She has accepted leading roles in the 2009 films All Good Things and Sweet Relief.
- Clumsy sentence: "In 2008, Dunst admitted that she was suffering from depression and checked herself into rehab, and discharged herself in March 2008." The punctuation and the repetition make awkward reading, and "rehab" is colloquial. Suggested rephrase: "Early in 2008 Dunst admitted that she was suffering from depression. She checked into a treatment centre, discharging herself in March and resuming her career."
- Early life
- Why discuss her parents in the past tense? Assuming both are living and haven't taken up new vocations, "was" can become "is" on each occasion.
- Well, the fact that they are no longer working the jobs that are mentioned, thus "was" being mentioned.
- Avoid the repetition of "descent" in the second sentence of the first paragraph. It could be rephrased: "Dunst is of German descent on her father's side, and Swedish on her mother's."
- There are too many commas in the first sentence of the second paragraph. At least lose the one after "younger brother"
- "...to continue in her acting career" – "in" is redundant
- Early work
- Lose comma after "age of eight"
- "anthology film" – "film" is redundant
- A comma is required after (1990)
- You need to have a clearer idea about what constitutes her "early work". From what you have said in the article, 1994 seems a reasonable cut-off point for the early part of her career, before her "widespread recognition". But in this Early work section you also mention her 1997 role in Kiki's Delivery Service, and some undated ER appearances which I guess were some time after 1994. I notice that the next section, "Critical success", begins with 1994; if you are extending her early work to, say, 1997, then some of this Critical success material belongs in Early work.
- No, that was my bad, I totally forgot to fix that part; I added the films to the correct section.
I will try and continue this prose review, as time allows. Brianboulton (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have been a while, but I'm back now
- Critical success
- It's not a good idea to start a new section with "She..." I realise that both the previous sections have begun with "Dunst...", so we have to be a bit creative. How about: "The breakthrough role in Dunst's career came..."?
- Sorry, but what does "Brad had cooties" mean? Is there a Brit-Eng equivalent that we poor islanders might understand?
- See here; It means that back when she was 10 she was asked how if "felt" being kissed by Pitt and she telling the media that he had a "fictitious disease or condition", a term used by children.
- I have wikilinked the term, for the benefit of non-North American readers
- A comma is required after "Torrance Shipman", but not after "2000". Thus the sentence begins: "In 2008 she played Torrance Shipman, ..." etc
- Delete the "while" at the beginning of the Jessica Winter section. It wrecks the grammar.
- Spider-Man and after
- To avoid repetition, in the 4th paragraph I suggest that the second "reviews" is changed to "reception"
- "...her highest grossing film to date" – it's that time-specific thing again; when is "to date"? It would be better to say something like "to the end of 2008"
- Lose the comma after "she would do it"
- "five-year struggle" needs a hyphen
- "and later revealing" - no "and" necessary
- In the lead, you referred to All Good Things as a future project for 2009. Here, it seems she has already completed the film and is awaiting its release. The two accounts need to be consistent with each other.
- Filming ended in July 2008 and its expected to be released in 2009. Also, I added this ---> "She has accepted a supporting role in All Good Things", don't know if it helps out or not.
- It doesn't really - in fact, it contradicts the lead statement, which describes her role in All Good Things as "leading". My suggestion is to say "She played a leading role in All Good Things, to be released in 2009,..." etc
- Personal life: two successive sentences in second paragraph start with "However". see if you can lose one of them.
- I did; "They ended their relationship later that year".
My reading has been a bit hurried because of pressure of things, but this looks potentially a decent article. I'd quite like to read it again, in a few days time when you've made the necessary changes and when things have slowed down for me – assuming the PR is still open by then. Good luck anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]