Talk:Kirsten Dunst/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Lead
  • "She made her film debut in Woody Allen's one-third Oedipus Wrecks of the anthology film New York Stories." I don't know what this means, especially "Allen's one-third Oedipus Wrecks of the ..."
    • Well, Woody Allen directed a short titled "Oedipus Wrecks" for New York Stories. The first short was directed by Martin Scorsese, the second one was directed by Francis Ford Coppola, and the third one was directed by Allen himself, that's why it was mentioned with "one-third". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah. I understand now. In that case, I would suggest something like "She made her film debut Oedipus Wrecks, a short directed by Woody Allen for anthology film New York Stories." That is if I've understood it correctly. Feel free to work your own magic with it though. Peanut4 (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She starred in the 1994 film Little Women opposite Winona Ryder and Claire Danes and starred in her breakthrough role in Interview with the Vampire, which earned her a Golden Globe nomination for Best Performance." starred ... starred. You certainly need to change one, but I don't even think the second one makes sense in its current wording. Also needs a comma after Danes with its current wording.
    • Fixed. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Dunst starred in her breakthrough role" Still says starred for second consecutive sentence. I'm not sure "starred in breakthrough role" is quite right. It's sounds a bit tautologus to me. Peanut4 (talk) 23:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dunst since then is currently working the projects How to Lose Friends & Alienate People, All Good Things, and Sweet Relief." Awkward wording to start the sentence.
  • "In 2008, Dunst admitted that she was battling with depression and checked herself into rehab. She checked herself out in March 2008," checked herself in ... checked herself out. I would suggest changing the second to "discharged herself"
  • I'd also possibly suggest a bit of a copy edit. The rest of the article flows very well, but think the lead sounds a bit of a list - though I admit given its required brevity, that is more likely.
Personal life
  • "Kirsten Dunst was born April 30, 1982 in Point Pleasant, New Jersey, the daughter of Inez and Klaus Dunst, who are divorced." Do you know when they divorced? Did it have any impact on Dunst's life?
    • The sources I've read don't say when they got divorced and the only impact it had on her was moving to LA with her mom and brother in 1993. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a minor point - and one more for the future rather than this GA process. Once you can find a reference for the year of divorce, I would suggest a minor edit of this section to chronologise it a little more, and mention the move to California more in context. Peanut4 (talk) 23:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't exactly know anything on the divorce, but I know her move to LA was to pursue her acting. I can expand that a little, if that's what you want. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She attended Notre Dame High School." Suggesting changing she to clarify it refers to Kirsten Dunst
  • "She also has a younger brother, Christian." Is this a full or half brother, given the divorce?
  • "Dunst is also a known Lutheran." Do you have a reference for this?
Career
  • Don't place images to the left directly under level three headings.
  • "Dunst got her start as a child fashion model at the age of three in television commercials." Try find an alternative for "get". It's unfortunately a very poor word in the English language since it has so many meanings.
    • You mean "got"? And, replaced it with "began". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've changed start to career, because it didn't make sense. Is what I changed it to still correct? Peanut4 (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dunst portrayed young Amy March in the successful 1994 film adaptation of Little Women." Why was it successful?
  • "The movie featured a scene in which Dunst, then aged eleven, received her first kiss from Brad Pitt, who was twenty-nine." Do you have any more details to expand on this? Were there any remarks in the press? Or controversy in the industry? Etc.
    • No, because that was a major part from the film. I added some reviews about her performance. No, there wasn't any controversy surrounding the "kiss". --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there a wikilink to 2000 in film, as well as 2004 and 2007, but there doesn't appear for other years?
  • "The film is expected to release in early of October 2008.[30] is also expected to portray peace activist Marla Ruzicka in Sweet Relief scripted by Lorene Scafaria for Warner Independent Pictures in 2009." Something missing here.
  • "She is rumored to have the role of Blondie frontwoman Debbie Harry in director Michel Gondry's upcoming biopic about the band." I would suggest changing have to play or something similar.
Music
  • Has her music career entered the charts at all? If it has, would adding anything in, even be particularly relevant?
Personal life
  • "after meeting him through his sister, Maggie (her Mona Lisa Smile co-star)" I would suggest losing the brackets. Did they meet while they filmed Mona Lisa Smile or afterwards?
    • Its not notable if they met on the set, but it does seem notable that they met afterwards. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though, they broke up in July 2004." It seems an incomplete sentence. I would add it to the previous sentence or change "though" to "however"
  • "She most recently dated frontman Johnny Borrell of Razorlight." Expand on recently. When did they date? Are they still dating?

A bit to do, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 21:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note. All that it needs now is an explanation why The Bonfire of the Vanities, The Virgin Suicides and The Cat's Meow have been chosen for special mention in the lead. Though I'm sure your choices aren't controversial, someone could easily come along and decide to change it for one of her other films. For the same reason the sentence with Wimbledon, Elizabethtown and Marie Antoinette, may need slight tweaking. It may only need an odd word or two, e.g. "Dunst became well known when she was cast as Mary Jane Watson in the Spider-Man films." is perfect, had it just said "Dunst was cast as Mary Jane Watson in the Spider-Man films." it would have looked vague. All you need to do is add something similar which picks out her roles as it does with Jane Watson. I hope that makes sense. Peanut4 (talk) 14:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining points in lead

The following roles need to explain why they are so relevant for the lead. At the moment they appear to me, as someone not totally au fait with Dunst's career as randomly selected, and don't sum up her career. I don't understand why you've picked The Bonfire of the Vanities (the main article says it's only a small role), rather than Little Women, which according to the article gained widespread praise. Or I don't understand why The Virgin Suicides rather than Variety, the latter of which has three times as much info the main article.

  • "Dunst was cast as Tom Hanks' daughter in The Bonfire of the Vanities."
  • "She also had a supporting role in the 1999 mainstream film The Virgins Suicides, in which she played Lux Lisbon a rebellious adolescent."
  • "Since then, she starred in Wimbledon, Elizabethtown opposite Orlando Bloom, and Marie Antoinette."
    • The main body doesn't even mention Wimbledon or Elizabethtown.

Remember the lead must sum up the article per WP:LEAD. Peanut4 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm totally confused. You have simply swapped around her films in the lead, completely proving my point that it seems entirely interchangable what films to put in the lead. I suppose adding a few random films does sum up the article, since that is what some of them get in the main article, merely a mention. But it seems a little WP:POV which films you're choosing. Peanut4 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've re-added Little Women, since The Bonfire of the Vanities, wasn't that "notable" to include. You questioned whether or not The Virgin Suicides was important to include, so I removed it. The other films: Wimbledon and Elizabethtown were removed, since there was no mention of them in the Career section. Now, as for the "POV", I've removed Bring it On, but I think its notable to include that she portrayed Marie Antoinette in the 2006 film. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'm going to pass this, despite having a couple of reservations about the lead still. It's a good article, and the bulk of the work is well-written, and good to see a variety of images. It provides a good basis of article, with which to expand further and hopefully work towards FAC.

My main concerns have always been with the lead, and what makes some inclusions / exclusions more noteworthy than others, and why another user might not come along and change the lead. The main work that needs doing on the lead, is to tighten it up, to make it obvious for the reasons why you include particularly films.

I'm sorry this review has taken longer than possibly either of us expected. I try and be as thorough as possible and leave articles in a) a better state than before, even if they probably already meet the GA criteria and b) ready for further improvement or progress towards FAC.

I hope you or another user tries to further expand this article, take on board the concerns I still have, and perhaps push for FAC. Everything is in place to work towards further improvements. I would definitely suggest a peer review before taking it to FAC. But otherwise best of luck with it. Peanut4 (talk) 00:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know your trying to do the best you can when it comes to GA reviews, believe I know that feeling, but I was just trying to explain her film roles into the article, and I went with what you suggested, but I still needed to make the correct changes, and I understand that. Thank you for taking your time in giving the article a GA review and I will take your advice for a PR whenever the article goes towards the FA future. :) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 01:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kirsten_Dunst/GA1&oldid=231576432"