Talk:Agnes Mowinckel/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: &bull; Ling.Nut 12:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * 2) Prose quality: Patchy. Forex: "It was often stormy around her" is vague figurative language. "Personal life" section: every sentence begins with "she" (I see this in later sections, also).. In the " Actress" section, how long was she in Kristiania? Who is Ulrike Pihl, is he/she notable, if not then delete the name at least. I also see other instances of naming people whose significance needs to be explained or the names dropped.."A visit to London in 1912 was influential for her later role as stage instructor" how was it influential? In fact... throughout the article, the reader encounters a prose-style list of her roles and her producing endeavors, but there is little explanation of how or why her contribution was significant, or how these things influenced her (if they did)... the prose is very list-like. There are some examples of poor grammar, e.g. "Next effort turned into a disaster," and others. The separation of the article into functional sections (as opposed to chronological ones) is a bit confusing, since the timeline jumps back and forth... forex, there is a gap in her production from 1926 to 1934 after the "palace coup" (please get rid of that figurative expression as well), but the gap is not really marked by a phrase such s "seven years later" or "it was seven years before she would return" or whatever... and the gap is dealt with in the next section, which begins "After the incidents at Nationaltheatret..." I am not saying you must switch to a more chronological organization, but if you don't, the coherence/cohesion of the paper needs to be preserved through time markers/transition phrases etc... I'm wondering if the "social life" section should be merged into "personal life". Overall: 1) Too list-like. This is a major problem, in my view. 2) needs copy editing for grammatical and prose problems. 3) may need reorganization 4) Need to spend more time talking about either hr significance, or significant events that happened to hr or influenced her. After yo finish that, please double-check the WP:LEDE to make sure that it accurately reflects any new (or newly emphasized) information...
 * 3) MoS compliance:
 * 4) Is it factually accurate and verifiable? This all looks OK.
 * 5) Is it broad in its coverage? The comments above hit on an overall tendency to bury major facts in a pile of minor ones... Actually, I barely noticed any major facts at all; her importance needs to be explored in greater depth...  Rewrite to stress important data and reemphasize minor details.
 * 6) Is it fair representation without bias: Seems fine
 * 7) Is it stable? No edit wars, etc: Seems fine
 * 8) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * 9) Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: IMAGE has no US PD data. Need to show it was published before 1923 and put a relevant PD-old-1923 template on it. The author's death date is not yet 70 years so a simple PD is probably not adequate.
 * 10) Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: One image may b enough because the article is short, but if you could find an old image of the theaters or whatever, that might be beneficial. But what we have now is OK.
 * 11) Overall: FAIL GA. &bull; Ling.Nut 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Review restarted
 * I failed Agnes Mowinckel, but as per comments by SilkTork at User talk:SilkTork, if you feel you can address the article's needs in seven days, I can unfail it and put it on hold for that period. Looking forward to your response. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I have noticed that the GA nom has been failed. If it had been put on hold I would probably try to improve the article. Oceanh (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll put it on hold for 7 days. Good luck! &bull; Ling.Nut 21:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the review. I have tried to deal with most of the listed issues. Restructuring into a more chronological organization was fairly straightforward, but created some new challenges (citations, prose, etc.). A few important issues have been expanded, such as her first year in Kristiania (as a student), her marriage and motherhood, the comeback as actress after her divorce, and her first stage production. Hopefully most time gaps are closed, but she lived a long life and had a long career. Would appreciate further feedback. If additional expansion is desired, I think I have plenty of sources at least on her theatre work. As I am not a native English speaker, I would particularly appreciate comments on prose and grammar. Oceanh (talk) 01:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your English is actually very good, aside from a few problems with prepositions (which are the bBête noire of English language learners). The article just doesn't foreground the reasons why Mowinckel is famous. Was she the first to revive important plays? he first to use Nynorsk? etc. &bull; Ling.Nut 01:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)