Wikipedia:Peer review/Sandra Peabody/archive1

Sandra Peabody

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because I am planning on nominating Sandra Peabody for FA status. I have recently expanded this article to GA status, and I want to make it the best it can be.

Thanks, The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Chidgk1

The Harvard refs are really fiddly to do. If you install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors it will help you see which are wrong.

If you have time it would be great if you could you write a word or two on Wikipedia:Peer review/Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey/archive3

That article uses Harvard referencing - if you cannot follow it please ask

Comments by Z1720

Hi The Baudelaire Fortune I suggest reading other reviews at FAC and submitting your own reviews. This will help you learn what the criteria for FA are and you will discover ways to improve your own article. I am going to review this article as if it was a featured article candidate.

The lede's paragraphs are very short. Can this information be combined into two paragraphs? I notice that short paragraphs are a trend throughout the article.
Usually bios have the person's birthdate in brackets after their name.
"Her last acting role would be in the Alan J. Wendl" -> "Her last acting role was the..."
" moved to the West Coast and " where specifically?
"Most notably, she served as producer" Delete most notably
" In the mid-1960s, she made her debut appearance " Give the specific year
""a mystery, where these incidents were happening and they were trying to find this weird guy who was doing it. I was playing the girlfriend, and we had a lot of scenes riding horses and that sort of thing."" This is a very long quote. Can this information be given as prose?
"of more acting opportunities and for school." Why did she go to NY for school? Florida has schools, too.
"(year date unknown and in an undisclosed number of episodes.)" I don't think this is necessary and you can delete it.
"and unhappy with what she was seeing, she ultimately walked out." Did Peabody or her mother walk out?
The article discusses the reception of The Last House on the Left but in the following section discusses her experience making the film. I would put this information in chronological order.
It seems like she only acted for Craven in The Last House on the Left, so I don't think this section should be called "Collaboration with Wes Craven" Instead, I would call this section "The Last House on the Left" and have subsections for the production and the reception.
The block quote talks about her experience with Hurwitz, but the section doesn't mention him. Either expand upon their relationship or delete.
"She was cast under a film titled The Seven Deadly Sins." This feels like trivia and not important to her bio.
"It had a stint in grindhouse theaters" -> "It was shown in grindhouse theatres"
"and becoming a lost film. It was restored by company Vinegar Syndrome and released on DVD and Blu-ray in 2013." I don't think a film that was restored is a lost film anymore.
"While her character was written as a teenager, Peabody was 25 years old during the production" This sounds like trivia and can be deleted.
"and stated that he is the person that encouraged her" -> "and he encouraged her"
"Subsequently, Peabody began to distance herself" Replace subsequently with the year she transitioned away from acting.
"She would later create the half-hour children's program Get Moving" -> "She created the"
"Zone In (2001; 2007)." Why are there two years here?
The Personal Life section talks about her acting career, such as early productions or education. This belongs in her bio, as it describes her early acting pursuits and is part of her career as an actress. Instead this section should talk about personal relationships (like marriage or kids)
The "Szulkin, David A." is used as a reference, so it should not be in the Further Reading section. The other option is to change the title of this section to "Works cited" and remove the information from ref 12.

Those are my comments. Let me know if you have any questions. Please ping me when these corrections are complete and I will reassess the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Alright, I have done my best to make these corrections. The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments after a quick skim:

Ref 18 needs to be replaced with the format that you used for ref 1, 14, etc.
What is ref 28? What kind of source is it? Google Books is not an appropriate publisher.
What makes Bleeding Skull (ref 30) a high-quality source?
There is missing reference information in ref 25, 28, and 39.
If you are going to include some books in the Works cited section, you have to include them all. Ref. 21 should also use harv references.
What makes Lakewood a high-quality source? Why is it notable to include in the article?
What makes ref 26 a high-quality source?

I hope these help. Take a look at the references you have used and make sure everything is formatted correctly and of a high-quality. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: How do the references look now? Are references 30, 31, 34, and 35 fine under the references section or do they need to be moved under Works cited? I'm not sure how to format these if they need to be moved. The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Baudelaire Fortune:, here's a to-do list:

All references need an author and year of publication so they will be linked to the correct source in the Works cited section. Ref 19 and 27 are showing these errors. this script will let you see the error messages that I am seeing.
All book references should include page numbers. All newspaper references linked to Newspaper.com should include the page number that the source originally appeared on.
The sources in the Works cited section should be listed alphabetically by last name.
Refs 30, 31, 34, and 35 don't need to be in the Works cited section as they are not books. However, they need to be formatted properly: this includes the year they were published and their publisher. WP:REF has templates you can use for these references.

Please ping me when this is complete for more comments. Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I fixed the format of the references and alphabetized the works cited section. What else can I do to make it feature article quality? The Baudelaire Fortune (talk) 09:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a little thin on information. That doesn't mean it can't become an FA, but it will make it more difficult. I suggest going to WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, news.google.com and scholar.google.com to find more sources. I'm surprised the article doesn't have info about her personal life, and it would be great if there was information about her other roles besides The Last House on the Left. Also, why are ref 23 and 24 high-quality sources? If they are not, they should be replaced. I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Baudelaire Fortune it has been a month since the last comment. Usually, PRs that have been open for a month without further comments are closed. Are you still interested in keeping this open? Z1720 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this PR because it hasn't received a comment for more than a month and the nominator did not express a desire to keep it open. A new PR can be opened at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]