Talk:Jennifer's Body/GA1

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

Reviewer: SkarmCA (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am in the process of review this article. Please check back in a few days for the typical GA checklist and comments. Thank you! SkarmCA (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Writing (Prose/MoS)

The article is very well written and uses more 'advanced' grammatical techniques correctly. In my two sweeps of the article I did not find any minor errors to correct which furthers my conclusion that this article was well prepared for the Good Article Nomination process. The only issue I have with the prose is that some of the sections, such as the Design and Effects subheading under Production, rely mainly on verbatim quotes. While they are sourced appropriately and are not hurting this article I find that I struggled reading through the material. Rather than quoting directly for every piece of information it may be worthwhile to re-write some of it, relying on fewer direct quotes from the source material, before a Featured Article Nomination if that is in the plans for this article. As I mentioned the above does not hurt the article with regards to the Good Article Nomination process, but it is a comment I have aimed at furthering the article.

Verifiable

The article uses a broad range of sources. While some of the sources, such as entertainment sites, may offer reviews based solely on the opinions, key sources also include well known and respected newspapers. Having checked through the links cited I find that only major entertainment sites have been used, that are well known, and thus there does not appear to be any problem with the sources chosen.

A comment: Does the DVD home-video release for the film include behind the scenes information that may be cited instead of some of the websites? This may be a wise idea if it is plausible to do. I am not familiar with what was included in the Jennifer's Body DVD release specifically, but I do know based on other DVDs or Blu-Rays that I have purchased do include information directly from the creators, writers, and actors which may be an asset to the article.

Coverage

There is not much I can add here. The article covers all major aspects expected of a Good Article on a movie and is also quite precise when covering all major aspects in their appropriate sections.

One comment: Is there enough source material to warrant, perhaps, a separate article on the movie soundtrack? If so, one could be produced with a short overview in the main article with a link under the heading "Main article:". This is merely something to think about.

Neutral Point of View

Given the amount of work that has gone into the article it is clearly a film (or actors/actresses) that the writers appreciate. However, this has not stopped the authors from maintaining a neutral point of review. A broad range of sources are used and cover both the positives and negatives in regards to the film.

Stability

The article is stable. There are no edit-wars and different authors appear to be in agreement about the article and material presented.

Images

There are no issues with the images used in the article. They are appropriately captioned and are a nice addition to the article.

Overall

The article was very well done. It has been a pleasure to review given the amount of effort that was put into it. I wish the authors luck if they wish to pursue Featured Article status, or, if not, the best of luck on their next endeavor. SkarmCA (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SkarmCA. And I will consider everything you have stated about improving this article, especially the quoting stuff (which I also realized was too much). I suppose I sort of liked this film; something about it (such as the serial killer aspect, Megan Fox, or maybe both) certainly compelled me to work on it as much as I did. Again, thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)