Wikipedia:Peer review/Pearl (X)/archive1

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

I've listed this article for peer review because... I would love for this article to become a Featured Article, but I'm unsure if it is meeting the standard yet. Please be nice, but honest when giving comments. Thanks, FishLoveHam (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FishLoveHam, I am going to review this article's references. Please bare with me. Oh, I'd appreciate it if you took two minutes of your time to check out this peer review and leave your opinion. dxneo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just by setting my eyes on the lead, I noticed that there are references in the opening statement. Any reason why? dxneo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, thanks for taking on this review! I've included citations in the lead to support quotes used in it. I get it isn't a necessary practice, but I've been told it's preferred. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I also noticed that this article is somewhat short. Definitely GA material, not so sure about FA, but I could be wrong. dxneo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure that the length matters, the Featured Article criteria only asks that the article stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate. Even if the length was a factor, this wouldn't even be the shortest featured fictional character article, as it is longer than Sadie Harris and Simone Russell. FishLoveHam (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And to my surprise, this article is cited to just 31 sources. Thought it was gonna take me hours dxneo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Similar to above, I'm not sure if it matters... FishLoveHam (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyway, can you please help me verify the reliability of ref2 (Looper), ref14 (The Playlist), ref21 (MovieWeb), ref29 (The Heights) and ref30 (MovieWeb). Don't know how Sammi Brie missed this one on GAC haha. dxneo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  All I can really say is Looper is Approved on Rotten Tomatoes, MovieWeb has been considered a reliable and unbiased website. [1] [2] [3] I can't find anything supportive or opposing of The Playlist and The Heights. FishLoveHam (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @FishLoveHam just a passing comment: Looper is considered generally unreliable, so likely wouldn't fly at a FAC. Screen Rant is similarly considered generally low quality and unless you have a good rationale (Like the author being very experienced, for example) it's typically rejected. I don't have experience with many of the others, so I can't speak on those, but these two in particular likely shouldn't be used. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see ref11 (Screen Rant) was published via YouTube by Screen Rant. Please show that. You may use |via=YouTube and |publisher=Screen Rant. Good luck, wish you all the best. dxneo (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done FishLoveHam (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, can you please wikilink every website and publisher were possible. Just noticed there's The Guardian, IndieWire and so. dxneo (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick read through the prose first. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The actress added that herself and West were particularly interested in the desires and fears of the characters. – Is herself correct here? I'm not a native anglophone, but I'd probably just write: She added that she and West..., seeing as there is also no need to disambiguate between multiple female referents. Similarly, I think "the actress" can be replaced with "she" or "Goth" in several places.
  •  Done FishLoveHam (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The second paragraph under "Development" feels unfocused to me, starting with a sentence about makeüp and proceeding to various other topics. Maybe a topic sentence could be added to tie it together?
  •  Done FishLoveHam (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Goth was scheduled to return to the part of Pearl in addition to contributing to the film's script—this being the first time she had written for one. – There's something strange about that last clause, I feel. I think it could be reworded to feel a bit more natural.
  •  Done FishLoveHam (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Because Pearl was filmed so soon after X, Goth explained that it helped her imagine a younger version of her character because she was familiar with the cast and set. – This is technically not grammatical, I believe – what does it refer to? I'd say something like Goth explained that Pearl being filmed so soon after X helped her...
  •  Done FishLoveHam (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a terrible nitpick, but contractions like isn't and doesn't aren't used outside of quotes in articles.
  • Where did I do that? FishLoveHam (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments loosely based on the FA criteria follow. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FishLoveHam: ping since it's been a moment since the last review. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry, I wasn't aware you had left these comments! I'll address them soon! FishLoveHam (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first encounter with this film series, so I may not be the best to judge this, but this article seems comprehensive; I am not left wondering about anything, other than why I haven't heard of this apparently excellent series before.

• It was quite big among horror fans back in 2022, I understand that this might be off-topic, but I do recommend it lol. FishLoveHam (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the references suggests they're of good quality, in this case meaning mostly well-known publishers of film reviews.

This article seems stable enough, no edit wars or disputes. Lots of recent copyëdits in the history, make sure to get that all finished before submitting for FAC.

The lead section looks appropriately proportioned to me. The heading structure leaves nothing to be desired. The citation style is consistent.

Media is of course limited by the nature of the topic, but I think the files used are well-chosen and high quality.

I don't think the length is a problem, unless it of course turns out some significant aspect has been neglected so far.

@Maddy from Celeste: Comments have been addressed! FishLoveHam (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! I haven't been involved with the FA process before, so I can't comment on how a nomination now would go, but from what I can tell, this is a very good article. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! FishLoveHam (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]