Talk:Jennifer Connelly/GA1

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

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are stuck with me and I am a tedious reviewer. Please be patient.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have gotten me in a rare mood to just do a review and I am going to do it all in one shot. Please respond line by line and I will strike my concerns as they have been addressed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

First comments:


 * LEAD
 * I am just noticing that the LEAD has paragraph one using regular prose years and paragraph two using parenthetical years. I complained about this for other parts of the article, but it remains a problem here. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅I took care, I just erased some of the years and leave some others.--Gduwen (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Without even reading through the article I can say that the WP:LEAD of a WP:GA for a major star like this must be three paragraphs and possibly four. Make sure to summarize the entire article in this LEAD.

✅ Lead amplified to 3 paragraphs, tough you say three paragraphs are necessary i found a couple of good articles that have only 2 Bruce Willis,David Morse (actor), Evan Rachel Wood, Forest Whitaker, Daniel Craig. --Gduwen (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well two could be acceptable because the article was a bit shorter than I had expected. Just review WP:LEAD and follow its advice. I believe that this is a two to three paragraph subject as opposed to a three to four paragraph subject.  I was expecting to have questions about things needing more detail throughout the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Now the newly added phrase "Along her career different" should be "During her career different" .--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tweaked this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * “big screen debut” sounds colloquial and unencyclopedic. Try something more professional
 * I did not mean remove it. Something like "Her motion picture debut" would be fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ ok chief that's done now.--Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

✅ Fixed --Gduwen (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 September 2010 --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Early life
 * I am an overlinker, but I would suggest linking the following: ads, television commercials, audition
 * ✅ all merged.--Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * . I meant to find articles and link them so the words have blue hyperlinks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ hope that does it.--Gduwen (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if magazine ad and newspaper ad do not have their own articles, you needn't link to advertising twice.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I erased one of the links. --Gduwen (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is unclear to me whether here start in modeling is related to auditioning at Ford.
 * ✅ i changed it, her father's friend suggested her to model, she looked for representation and found it in ford (read source 59, first page)--Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The following sentence needs to be restructured so that its subordinated clause don’t have subordinated clauses that have subordinated clauses. These led to movie auditions and her first film role was as "young Deborah Gelly", a supporting role in Sergio Leone's 1984 gangster epic, Once Upon a Time in America, filmed mostly in 1982 when she was eleven.[14]
 * I don't see the change, but now am rereading it as the film name is a parenthetical, and filmed mostly... describes either the epic or the film by name. When I read it before I only thought filmed mostly... was modifying the named film. I'll let it stand.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I restructured it in a different way --Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * One line and stubby paragraphs need to be expanded or merged.
 * ✅ merged.--Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Being transferred (was this a decision made by someone else)?
 * ✅ I Re-wrote that part. She was transferred to train with Roy London, Howard Fine and Harold Guskin.--Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * being transferred suggest a decision made by someone else. Did she make the decision to transfer herself?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just can find information about her being transferred to train improvisation with that folks, nothing about her or someone else deciding about it. --Gduwen (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can not find information, the default assumption is that she made the decision herself. Thus, you need active voice. I.E., she transferred, not she was transferred. or transferring instead of being transferred.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR)
 * ✅ I took care of that part. Now it's written in active voice--Gunt50(talk) 15:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In 1984 needs to be followed by a comma.
 * ✅--Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From 1986 to 1992 appeared is missing a comma and a subject.
 * ✅ both corrected. --Gduwen (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hope the sentence is fixed now. --Gunt50 (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Early career
 * Is there any precedent for linking years to articles like 2000 in film?
 * ✅ so far linking all years to its respective years in film.--Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Another overly complicated sentence: Connelly became a star with her next picture, the fantasy Labyrinth (1986), playing Sarah, a teenager who wishes her baby brother into the world of goblins ruled by goblin king Jareth (David Bowie), where she then must journey to retrieve him; the film disappointed at the box office, but became a cult classic in later years with a large fan following still in existence. [21]
 * ✅ I modified it a bit.--Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that it better, but "where she must journey to retrieve him" is not intended to modify either Bowie or Jareth, so it must be rearranged further so that this phrase is adjacent to its referent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I modified the order of the phrase now.--Gduwen (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That sentence remains ungrammatical in the construction "She played Sarah, a teenager on the quest to rescue her little brother Toby, and her journey to retrieve him while trapped in an enormous otherworldly maze ruled by goblin King Jareth, portrayed by David Bowie." Her journey to retrieve him is the subject of an independent phrase construction that has no verb.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I wrote: She played Sarah, a teenager on the quest to rescue her little brother Toby, and the journey she carried out to retrieve him.
 * What is the verb and what is the noun in this (trying to be) "independent" phrase "the journey she carried out to retrieve him while trapped in an enormous otherworldly maze ruled by goblin King Jareth, portrayed by David Bowie."?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I restructured the whole thing, take a look.--Gduwen (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a link to explain Italo giallo master
 * ✅I think that the new source that i added does it. --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've still got problems with this
 * I don't know what the word Italo means.
 * I barely know what giallo means by the reference except that a group or genre of films are referred to by this monicker
 * IMDB is very low on the WP:RS scale.
 * IMDB is a dynamic resource which may change and not even mention giallo in the future. If you are going to ref it at least do a www.webcitation.org archive.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Italo means Italian (modified in the article) and i linked Giallo to its respective article. // Source changed from IMDb to All Movie. --Gduwen (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * less notorious seems to be the wrong adjective phrase for this usage
 * ✅ changed it for "less successful" --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. but now "which was never released in the United State" is modifying her career as currently written. It needs to be moved adjacent to that which it modifies.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Gduwen (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * never gained a United States release needs to be reworded as “was never released in the United States” or “never had a United States release”
 * ✅--Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to review tenses throughout. Film reviews often are written in the present tense because movies are in the theater or forthcoming.  A sentence like “Connelly starred in several obscure films, such as the 1988 Etoile, one of the less notorious in her career, which never gained a United States release[23] and the Michael Hoffman-directed Some Girls (1988), in which she plays the college student Gabby” that uses present tense to describe a historical role should be recast to be completely in the past tense.
 * ✅ Fixed --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A phrase like "plays Gloria Harper" is no good.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ It's in past tense now--Gunt50 (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Again stubby paragraphs need to be merged or expanded
 * ✅ --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The last para is still a problem.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I merged the paragraph into the section's second --Gunt50 (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it looks good to switch back and forth from year in parenthesis and regular prose flow.
 * ✅ --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * young innocent need to be reversed.
 * ✅ --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you remove this content entirely?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, it didn't seem that relevant after all so I removed it, champ. --Gduwen (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * that lead her to took some time off from acting is ungrammatical
 * ✅ modified. --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks the same.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I replace it for "this resulted in a temporary break in Connelly's acting work." --Gduwen (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * show her capacity of taking more mature roles should be recast as demonstrate her ability to handle more mature roles.
 * ✅ --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a link for against type or type?
 * what do you mean? --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My question is many readers will be asking this same question about the meaning of "against type". Can you help them with a link?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I Replaced it by "...played a different role from her beginning standards..."
 * Beginning standards is still a term I do not understand. How about a role very different from the types she had previously portrayed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅Ok, that sounds much better chief. --Gduwen (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Spell out Tv.
 * ✅--Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The phrase “making her first Tv appearance” needs to be moved to be adjacent to its referent (Connelly)
 * ✅ --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me be clear. When placed next to The $treet, its grammatical interpretation is as referring to that when it is intended to refer to Connelly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "drama series The $treet, being Connelly's firs Television appearance" is that ok?
 * Tweaked myself.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * maybe link brokerage house --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Gduwen (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Breakthrough and early 2000s
 * It seems that there should be a link for drug addiction and breakdown
 * ✅ --Gunt50 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I dabbed breakdown to mental breakdown.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You should mention some of the modest critical acclaim for her requiem role
 * ✅ I did already include the most acceptable review on individual performances in the movie I been able to find on the web--Gunt50 (talk) 21:16, 08 September 2010 (UTC)
 * which awoke her interest in taking the role should be that awoke her interest in taking the role”
 * ✅ --Gunt50 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Jennifer Connelly TIFF09.jpg needs the same personality rights warning that the other files have.
 * ✅ Warning added chief. --Gduwen (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am curious about the main image choice. Of the three, it is the least flattering, IMO. I would prefer a picture that says "This Is Why I'm Hot".  With all this talk about all the lists she is on, is there any chance of conjuring up a better main image.  The white dress looks to me most like a most beautiful woman pic.  However, since it is 5 years old, I can't push it too hard.  However, she looks a little off (in comparison to her own world class standards) in the image chosen, IMO.  I know most celeb photographers don't like to give up their good images, but you might want to see if anything better is out there. --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We (user Gduwen and me) been trying to get a more representative pic for the article. We haven't been authorized to use any other photos than the present ones on the article. I'd suggest to change the current intro's image for the one in which she's dressing the red dress (It's from 2009) and place the first one in a different place within the article. I think that would be perhaps more coherent to the text.--Gunt50 (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a clearer depiction of this universally chosen most beautiful woman. Make the switch.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think that the pic in the infobox it's ok, illustrative enough for the article because shows her face quite well, The other pics doesn't. And about This Is Why I'm Hot thing, you can see that she's a hottie by the other pics along the article. --Gduwen (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was she the wife of the main character or his alter ego?
 * She played the wife of the main character. Nash had no alter ego. He hallucinated other people but did not have an alter ego himself --Gunt50 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He had Schizophrenia not Dissociative identity disorder there was no alter ego.--Gduwen (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am talking about "In Hulk she portrayed the scientist and former girlfriend of the main character, Betty Ross".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, but remember it was his former Girlfriend nothing about wife, anyway it's kinda difficult to imagine she's married to a supersized-angry monster who can't reason. --Gduwen (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC
 * My point is that since the movie is named Hulk, a reader might think Hulk is the main character. We need to be clear who she was married to.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's done now. --Gduwen (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * move ref 55 to follow the Kingsley punctuation
 * We're using ref no 55 to source the acclaim of her role by People. Are you sure you want to move that specific ref? --Gunt50 (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are talking about what is now ref 59, move it to the end of the sentence.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ I moved the ref --Gunt50--190.105.4.123 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * After more than a year off acting seems to be stray text.
 * ✅I specified the exact time: 2 years (from The House of Sand and Fog (2003) til Dark Water (2005)) and moved the line to the next subsection to a coherent context. --Gunt50 (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * 2005-2007
 * her first horror movie since Phenomena, which was based on a Japanese film again is subordinated subordinated clause structure
 * ✅ Fixed --Gunt50 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. could you add "in 19XX" after the word Phenomena.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed --Gunt50 I added the year --190.105.4.123 (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * link paranormal
 * ✅ --Gunt50 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * it seems that the paragraph breaks one sentence too late.
 * ✅ I already restructured that part--Gunt50 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2008-present
 * She played Dr. Helen Benson, a Princeton University astrobiologist, Connelly a fan of the original movie[67] performed in a role different from the original, were Helen Benson was a secretary and the focus of the movie balanced in her romantic relationship with Klaatu. Needs to be rewritten to separate jumbled thoughts.
 * ✅ --Gunt50 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2009 is no longer present tense
 * ✅ --Gunt50 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The same year voiced 7, in the animation film 9. Is missing a word.
 * ✅ subject added --Gunt50 (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Personal life
 * despite her notorious film career[13] and her preference for family life seems off for two reasons:
 * First notorious is not used correctly here since it has derogatory implication
 * ✅ I substituted notorious for successful. Just hope that fits better  --Gunt50 (talk) 22:39, 08 September 2010 (UTC)
 * keeping a low profile goes hand in hand with preference for family life
 * ✅ I reversed the part concerning her low profile. I consider the personal quote explains it pretty much --Gunt50 (talk) 22:39, 08 September 2010 (UTC)
 * whom met while working is missing a word
 * ✅ subject added --Gunt50 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * More stubby sentence problems
 * ✅ -- User GDuwen merged one of the stubby sentences into the intro to complete it. I took the time to merge the remaining one into different paragraphs of the section in order to solve this problem. --Gunt50 (talk) 22:39, 08 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This whole paragraph: “Connelly was named on November 14, 2005 Amnesty International Ambassador for Human Rights Education[87] as well she contributed in several charity campaigns, she was featured in an advertising for highlighting the need of clean water of people globally with the end of finance with donations drilling projects in Africa, India, and Central America.[88] On May 2, 2009 she participated of Revlon's annual 5k Run/Walk for Women along with Jessica Alba and Jessica Biel.” Is ungrammatical
 * ✅ fixed --Gunt50 (talk) 16:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mostly fixed. I have a problem with the phrase "with the end of finance".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "...with the end of contribute with donations to drilling projects in Africa, India, and Central America." sounds better? --Gduwen (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No. not exactly sure what you are trying to say. Maybe "with the end result that people made donations to. . ."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I took the time to fix that sentence. I think it's already solved. You should take a look now --Gunt50 (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

I apologize for my slow and tedious review. Thanks for your patience and diligence.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * There is room for improvement in the flow of the prose.
 * 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):
 * Could use a bit more about non-filmography stuff
 * 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):
 * I would still like a better main image
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article clearly passes WP:WIAGA now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * This article clearly passes WP:WIAGA now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)