Talk:Joanna Kulig/GA1

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

Reviewer: FrB.TG (talk · contribs) 22:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * I'm not a fan of the current structure. In the lead paragraph, we mention the 2018 film Cold War, which I assume is her most notable role. Then in the next paragraph, we go back to her career beginnings. In the third paragraph, we then repeat the mention of Cold War. Is it absolutely necessary to have Cold War mentioned in the lead paragraph? Maybe we could just stick to her overall achievements there like her awards and other info we might have.
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Her other notable credits include the highest-grossing Polish film of all time Clergy (2018)" - there should be a comma after "time".
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Body
 * "She followed this with the titular role in the 2008 television play Doktor Halina, which proved to be a pivotal moment in her career." In what sense was it pivotal?
 * Pivotal in the sense that it led to her working with Pawlikowski and made her want to return to acting, but you might be right that it's not very clear and perhaps even be a bit presumptuous. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "After seeing the play, director Paweł Pawlikowski invited her to audition for his film Ida, and then cast her in his 2011 psychological thriller The Woman in the Fifth in a role written specifically for her." Why did he cast her in TWitF when she auditioned for Ida? Did she fail her audition for the latter? Did the director offer her the TWitF role directly after the audition?
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "She won the Polish Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, and another recognition at the Gdynia Film Festival for Best Supporting Actress." Why not just "She won Best Supporting Actress at the Polish Academy Awards and Gdynia Film Festival"?
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "That same year, she played local priest's girlfriend with whom she gets pregnant" - only one person in the duo can physically be pregnant. So, it would be more accurate to say that the priest got her pregnant.
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Why was Clergy controversial? The subject matter does seem a little controversial but did it infuriate a certain group of people or what exactly made it "controversial"?
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Full stop outside the quotation mark. See MOS:LQ.
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Aside from speaking Polish—her first language—she also speaks English, French and German" - "also" is redundant here because the phrase "Aside from speaking Polish" already implies an additional set of languages.
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Spot-checks of sources
 * Ref. 10 - no problem
 * "The film premiered to mixed reception, though Kulig's performance received praise." I don't see a source supporting this statement. While we do have the IndieWire review that echoes this, that is just the opinion of one critic but the sentence makes it sound like a general consensus among critics.
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding "she trained with a folk group for half a year in preparation for the part," it is sourced to source 10, which confirms this. However, source 36 states that she trained for five months. How did you decide which source to stick to. I assume you opted for the Time Out statement it directly quotes Kulig but I want to confirm that this was the rationale behind the choice.
 * Correct. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Ref. 44 - OK
 * Ref. 47 - OK
 * Not seeing any source to support the claim that Kompromat received mixed reviews.
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The same for "Despite the mixed reception of the film [She Came to Me]". It appears to be a recurring issue throughout the article, where the viewpoint of a single critic is cited to substantiate sweeping statements as if it were a consensus among multiple critics. Unless there's a source akin to Rotten Tomatoes, sentences of this nature should be omitted.
 * Done. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

On hold for 7 days. FrB.TG (talk) 11:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ref. 68 - OK
 * Ref. 71 - OK
 * Many thanks for the review . All valid points. Please let me know if you’re happy with my edits. I think all your comments have now been addressed. ArturSik (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I especially like the new additions; they have made the article much more interesting. Passing. FrB.TG (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)