| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I intend to submit it for Featured Article status when it reaches the necessary standard. I'd be grateful for any feedback. Which sections require more detail? Does it read well?
Thanks, Popeye191 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comments by Bradley0110
This article is well-focused and is grounded in a variety of reputable sources and it would be nice to see it sitting alongside the featured articles of her co-stars Cillian Murphy and Eric Bana. It's got a way to go before it reaches featured status though. There are many FA-standard actor articles on which to model this one (see WP:ACTOR#Featured articles).
- Lead
- This is a good lead and the paragraphs mirror the structure of the main article well. As the article develops however, so should the lead.
- Early life
- As the lead isn't part of the article proper you should begin this section with her full name.
- Career
- Instead of breaking up this section by decade, consider separating it by her pre-break career (2001-2006), her post-break career (2008-Sherlock Holmes) and her career as a star (Morning Glory-present). That makes it a little more interesting, and you can focus the article on how her career has developed instead of trying to slot it into date ranges that don't quite fit.
- Early 2000s
- Most of this section is "She was in [film name]. It did well/poorly at the box office and she got good/bad reviews." Try to incorporate information on how she prepared for roles and specific reviews of her performance rather than just how well/poorly the film did. This information won't be available for everything but there should be some good stuff for the big films like Mean Girls and Red Eye -- in the Mean Girls paragraph you've just got "McAdams herself received favourable reviews,[25][26] with USA Today praising her "comic flair".[27]" Can you incorporate opinion from refs 25 and 26?
- In The Notebook paragraph, "New York Times" should be "The New York Times" and it doesn't need re-linking in the Wedding Crashers and Family Stone paragraphs.
- "In the smash-hit comedy[...]". This is back-of-DVD-box writing and not really suitable for an encyclopedia.
- Late 2000s
- "Variety's critic felt that, while McAdams had been "regrettably absent from the big screen since The Family Stone nearly two years ago" and here "endows her readings with tender feeling", "her natural vivaciousness and spontaneity are straightjacketed by the format".[56]" The quotes in this sentence are extremely awkward and underwhelming. My rule of thumb when incorporating quotes from reviewers is only include the quote if you would lose the reviewers' intended effect if you reword it. The first quote doesn't add anything to the article, the second is quite good and the third is quite confusing when taken out of context. What format does McCarthy mean? The genre of the film?
- This section features more multiple linkings of the same publication (NYT and Variety).
- "2010's Morning Glory, a behind-the-scenes look at an ailing morning television program[...]" This wording makes the film sound like a documentary.
- "While critics found the movie "formulaic"[...]" Who are these pluraled critics?
- Filmography
- Good use of sorting but the Notes column should be unsortable.
- Further reading should be below references. Are page numbers available for the InStyle article?
- References
- Some dates are formatted as MONTH-DAY-YEAR and others as YYYY-MM-DD. This should be consistent.
- Some publishers are in brackets and others aren't. This should be consistent.
- There are bare URLs in many places, particularly in the 70-100 range. You need author, publication date, title, publication, and access date for web refs.
- "New York Times" should be "The New York Times".
Bradley0110 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review it - very helpful. It'll take me a little while but I'll work through the issues outlined.Popeye191 (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)