Wikipedia:Peer review/Jessica Lee Rose/archive1

Jessica Lee Rose

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I initially listed this article under Biography Peer Review, but due to a comment on my talk page regarding the inactivity of that project, I have relisted it here. The following is the description I used on the Biography PR:

I was hoping to get this article to a GA status, or maybe even a FA status. Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Arts says "Due to the extremely large number of pending nominations in this category, nominators are advised that it may take a long time before a review begins. You may still add your nomination, but if you just want comments directed at improving the article, you might want to try Peer Review first." Therefore, I was hoping I could get some feedback before getting it officially reviewed. Additionally, myself and another user believe it is already B-class, but due to a dispute (see here), it is listed as C-class, falsely, I believe. Regardless, I was hoping to get some feedback and ideas to improve upon an article I have worked hard on and believe to be in pretty good shape as it is. Thank you very much for your time. --Zoeydahling (talk) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have a couple thoughts:
  • I think the lead needs to be expanded to talk about her career after YouTube. 1/3 of the article is about her career after YouTube but there's no mention of it in the lead.
  • All images are fair use, so that's good. I do think the caption for the second image is too long. I feel descriptions that long should be put into the body of the article. I would suggest stating something about how the picture is a screen shot of Jessica in her role as Bree. Something short and description of the picture itself rather than the impact of the show. WP:CAP
  • Most of your references look like they're in the right format but several are missing retrieval dates. References 5, 24, and 26 are formatted incorrectly. Reference 28 needs a volume and issue number. This sentence ---> The idea concerned her at first, as she was afraid the project was pornography, but she was convinced otherwise and agreed to partake needs a reference.
  • The career section is choppy. It doesn't read as smoothly as the personal life or YouTube sections. There needs to be a flow to it. There's more information about Jessica's career here with links to where they got the information. Perhaps if you had more material to put in the career section, achieving the flow that's missing would be easier. As long as you use the proper citation format, those links they have could serve as references for the article here on wikipedia. If you feel the information is useful, integrate what's stated there (rather than copy and paste—that would be a copyright violation). It's looks like you tried to put her various acting jobs in chronological order and I can appreciate that. Here's an good example of a featured article candidate whose information is in chronological order.
  • Try to avoid jargon like scatologically to describe a movie WP:JARGON. I honestly don't even know how to say it. I would suggest taking the adjective out all together or using another word.

Hope this helps. // Gbern3 (talk) 19:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to review the article. I have only done a first look through your comments, and may be editing my thoughts after going through them again, but here were my initial responses to what you said.

1. I have been having a lot of trouble with the lead. Even after reading WP:LEAD three or four times, I can't figure out what else to add. The lead does say "Her YouTube fame skyrocketed her to national attention, where she was able to use her newfound celebrity to win roles in various other movie, television, and web-based productions." which is about her post-lonelygirl15 fame. Do you think it needs to be longer than that? If so, can you maybe help me figure out how to expand it?
2. I shortened the caption on the "Bree" image, thanks for the suggestion.
3. I will try to find retrieval dates, but some of them were retrieved by people other than myself. Can I use today's date as a retrieval date if I can still use the links today, or do I need to go back and find the date the people added them to the article? I'll fix 5, 24, and 26. Unfortunately, I do not have an actual physical copy of the Jane magazine article anymore, so I do not have access to the volume or issue number. Are they necessary (in all of my university writing classes, I was told to only fill in the info you knew and that would suffice, but I am not sure what the policy on Wikipedia is)? Additionally, the sentence about pornography is cited by the reference after the following sentence. I didn't think I needed to cite two sentences individually if they use the same source. Is this mistaken? UPDATE: I added accessdates for today for all of them, since I checked the references today (13 & 28 are not showing up, I'm not sure why because the information is there). I also fixed 5, 24, & 26. So aside from the Jane article, which I don't have access to anymore, I believe I covered all of this.
4. I can take a look at the flow of that section and try to incorporate some of LGPedia's references. I'm not entirely sure how well I will do at that, but I will definitely try! UPDATE: I tried to improve the flow of the section. How does it look now?
5. I have removed the term scatalogically. I didn't realize it fell under WP:JARGON, thanks for pointing that out.

Once again, thanks for taking the time to review the article and to read my thoughts! --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The post-YouTube section flows much better and your references look better as well. The new retrieval dates are fine. A date in general is necessary so that when someone wants to fact check an internet source they can use the wayback machine to do so. About the pornography sentence, in general it's a good practice to reference statements if they have the chance of being challenged. Although the reference in the sentence after validates what was said in the sentence before, this isn't clear. By saying it's not clear, I mean people only know that a certain references counts for the statement it immediately follows. They wouldn't know that it counts for multiple sentences but there's a certain way to format sources so that you can reference them twice. I didn't know how to explain how to format them so I went ahead and did it myself. Look at this pages history to see how I did it. UPDATE: found it WP:REFNAME

About the lead - I suppose you could say something like this (my changes are capitalized) --> Her YouTube fame skyrocketed her to national attention [PERIOD] SHE was able to use her newfound celebrity to win roles in various other movie, television, and web-based productions INCLUDING A RECURRING ROLE ON THE ABC SERIES GREEK AND A SUPPORTING ROLE IN THE 2007 FILM I KNOW WHO KILLED ME. Something like that. That way her career after lonelygirl15 is referenced in some way. Gbern3 (talk) 22:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)